Documentation Completeness Audit Skill

Documentation Completeness Audit

Determine whether a documentation set covers everything it should by building an inventory of what needs documenting and comparing it to what exists. The output is a prioritized gap report — not new documentation.

When to Use

After shipping a feature — verify docs cover the new surface area
Before a release — ensure no undocumented public APIs, CLI flags, or config options
When users or new hires report "I couldn't find docs for X"
Periodic health check on doc coverage
After running doc-maintenance (structural) and doc-claim-validator (accuracy) to go wider

Quick Reference

| Resource | Purpose | Load when | |----------|---------|-----------| | references/coverage-model.md | Defines what "complete" means per doc type | Always (Phase 1) |

Workflow Overview

Phase 1: Inventory   → Build the "should exist" list from code and config
Phase 2: Map         → Match inventory items to existing documentation
Phase 3: Classify    → Score each gap by audience impact
Phase 4: Report      → Produce the prioritized gap report

Phase 1: Build the Inventory

Construct a list of everything that should be documented. Use four sources, checking all of them:

Source 1: Public Code Surface

Run the bundled inventory script to extract documentable surface area deterministically:

python3 skills/doc-completeness-audit/scripts/inventory.py --root . --json > inventory.json

# Or human-readable:
python3 skills/doc-completeness-audit/scripts/inventory.py --root .

# Run specific detectors only:
python3 skills/doc-completeness-audit/scripts/inventory.py --root . --detectors env_vars,cli_commands

The script scans source files across Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Go, Ruby, Java, and shell, extracting six categories:

| Detector | What it extracts | |----------|-----------------| | env_vars | Environment variable references (os.environ, process.env, env::var, etc.) | | cli_commands | CLI commands and flags (argparse, click, clap, cobra, commander) | | config_keys | Configuration key access in config-related files | | http_endpoints | HTTP route definitions (Flask, FastAPI, Express, Actix, Axum, net/http) | | public_exports | Public module exports (__init__.py, export, pub fn, Go capitalized funcs) | | error_types | Custom error/exception class definitions | | Event types, webhooks, callbacks | Every event name and payload shape |

Dispatch an Explore agent to scan for these signals. Provide it with the project's primary language and entry points.

Source 2: User-Facing Features

Identify features a user interacts with:

TUI screens, views, keybindings
CLI workflows (multi-step operations)
Integration points (hooks, plugins, extensions)
Authentication/authorization flows
Error messages that imply user action

Source 3: Operational Surface

Identify what operators and maintainers need:

Installation and setup procedures
Upgrade and migration paths
Backup and restore procedures
Troubleshooting common errors
Environment requirements and dependencies
CI/CD integration points

Source 4: Existing Docs Cross-References

Check existing docs for promises of documentation that doesn't exist:

"See [link]" references to pages that don't exist
"Coming soon" or "TODO" markers
Table of contents entries without corresponding pages
Navigation entries without targets

Output: A structured inventory list. Each item has:

topic — what needs documenting
source — where the requirement was discovered (code path, config key, user flow)
audience — who needs this (end user, developer, operator)
type — what kind of doc it needs (reference, tutorial, guide, explanation)

Phase 2: Map to Existing Documentation

For each inventory item, search existing docs:

Exact match — a dedicated section or page covers this topic
Partial match — mentioned but not fully explained (e.g., a flag listed in a table but never explained, a feature referenced in a tutorial but without its own reference entry)
No match — no documentation found

Search strategy:

Grep docs for the topic name, function name, config key, or feature name
Check table of contents and navigation indexes
Check inline code references in existing pages
Read surrounding context — a grep hit doesn't mean adequate coverage

Mark each item:

Documented — dedicated, adequate coverage exists
Shallow — mentioned but insufficient (missing examples, missing edge cases, incomplete reference)
Missing — no documentation found
Misplaced — documentation exists but in the wrong location (e.g., API reference in a tutorial)

Phase 3: Classify Gaps by Impact

Not all gaps are equal. Score each gap using audience impact:

Priority Framework

| Priority | Criteria | Example | |----------|----------|---------| | P0 | User cannot accomplish a core task without this | No installation guide, undocumented required config | | P1 | User can work around it but wastes significant time | CLI flag exists but undocumented, error message without troubleshooting | | P2 | Missing docs for secondary features or advanced use cases | Plugin API undocumented, advanced config options missing | | P3 | Missing docs for edge cases or rarely used features | Obscure env var, deprecated feature migration path | | P4 | Nice to have — explanatory content, design rationale | Architecture decision records, "why" behind defaults |

Audience Weighting

Apply a multiplier based on audience:

| Audience | Weight | Rationale | |----------|--------|-----------| | New users / onboarding | 1.5x | First impressions; high abandonment risk | | Daily users | 1.0x | Core audience | | Advanced users / contributors | 0.8x | Can read source when docs fail | | Internal operators | 0.7x | Can ask the team |

A P2 gap for new users (P2 × 1.5 = 3.0) outranks a P1 gap for internal operators (P1 × 0.7 = 2.1).

Phase 4: Produce the Gap Report

Report Format

# Documentation Completeness Audit

**Audit date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Scope:** [directories or doc sets audited]
**Inventory items:** N total
**Coverage:** N documented / N shallow / N missing / N misplaced

---

## Summary

[2-3 sentences: overall completeness assessment]

Coverage by audience:
| Audience | Documented | Shallow | Missing | Coverage % |
|----------|-----------|---------|---------|------------|
| New users | N | N | N | N% |
| Daily users | N | N | N | N% |
| Contributors | N | N | N | N% |
| Operators | N | N | N | N% |

---

## P0 Gaps — Blocking

| # | Topic | Audience | Source | Current State | What's Needed |
|---|-------|----------|--------|---------------|---------------|
| 1 | [topic] | [who] | [code path] | Missing | [what to write] |

## P1 Gaps — High Impact

| # | Topic | Audience | Source | Current State | What's Needed |
|---|-------|----------|--------|---------------|---------------|

## P2 Gaps — Moderate Impact

| # | Topic | Audience | Source | Current State | What's Needed |
|---|-------|----------|--------|---------------|---------------|

## P3-P4 Gaps — Low Priority

| # | Topic | Audience | Priority | Current State |
|---|-------|----------|----------|---------------|

---

## Shallow Coverage Details

For each Shallow item, explain what's insufficient:

### [Topic]
**Current doc:** [path and section]
**Problem:** [what's missing — examples, edge cases, complete reference, etc.]
**Recommended action:** [specific improvement]

---

## Misplaced Documentation

| Topic | Current Location | Recommended Location | Why |
|-------|-----------------|---------------------|-----|

---

## Well-Documented (No Action Needed)

[List topics with adequate coverage, grouped by audience, so the report
shows the full picture and not just the gaps]

Integration with Other Doc Skills

This skill fits into the documentation health pipeline:

doc-maintenance         →  Structural health (links, orphans, folders)
doc-claim-validator     →  Semantic accuracy (do claims match code?)
doc-completeness-audit  →  Topic coverage (is everything documented?)
doc-quality-review      →  Prose quality (is it well-written?)
doc-architecture-review →  Information architecture (is it findable?)

Route gap remediation to the appropriate producer:

Reference gaps → reference-documentation
Tutorial gaps → tutorial-design
Explanation gaps → documentation-production

Anti-Patterns

Do not count files as coverage — a file can exist and say nothing useful
Do not manufacture gaps to look thorough — if coverage is good, say so
Do not audit archived docs (docs/archive/) — they are historical
Do not require documentation for internal implementation details — only public surface
Do not treat every function as needing its own doc page — aggregate by topic
Do not conflate "not documented" with "needs documenting" — some things are correctly undocumented (internal helpers, deprecated code scheduled for removal)

Bundled Resources

Scripts

scripts/inventory.py — Extract documentable surface area from any codebase (env vars, CLI commands, config keys, HTTP endpoints, public exports, error types)

References

references/coverage-model.md — Defines coverage expectations per doc type and audience

Agent Skills: Documentation Completeness Audit

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files