cli-audit-doc — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cli-audit-doc (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Optimization: This skill uses on-demand loading. Heavy content lives in references/ and is loaded only when needed.Language rule: Skill instructions are written in English. When generating user-facing output, detect the project's primary language (from README, comments, docs, commit messages) and produce the report in that language. If the project is bilingual, ask the user which language to use before proceeding.
"Stale docs are worse than no docs." — Docs-as-Tests methodology
file:line referencereference.md for language-specific rules)../gotchas.md before producing output to avoid known mistakes$ARGUMENTS is the target to audit (file path, directory, or empty for whole src/).
src/ (or project root) broadly (sample 15-20 key files)First, detect the primary language(s) from file extensions. Consult reference.md for language-specific conventions.
Score each dimension 0.0-1.0, then compute a weighted DQI. Read references/categories.md for detailed check lists per category.
| # | Category | Weight | Key question |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Diataxis Coverage | 10% | All 4 doc types present? Mode purity? |
| C2 | Completeness | 12% | Public API items documented? Coverage > 80%? |
| C3 | Freshness & Accuracy | 10% | Docs match current code? No stale references? |
| C4 | Readability & Prose Quality | 10% | No weasel words, condescension, passive voice? |
| C5 | Structure & Findability | 8% | Heading hierarchy? Scannable? No orphan pages? |
| C6 | Standard Sections | 8% | Errors, params, returns, examples documented? |
| C7 | Code Examples | 10% | Working, copy-pasteable, no unwrap()? |
| C8 | Accessibility & Inclusivity | 6% | Alt text? Bias-free language? Global-ready? |
| C9 | Inline Comments Quality | 8% | WHY not WHAT? No stale TODOs? |
| C10 | Cross-references & Linking | 5% | Types linked? Related items connected? |
| C11 | Testing & CI | 8% | Doc-tests? Link checking? Prose linting? |
| C12 | Maintenance Process | 5% | Docs reviewed in PRs? Ownership clear? |
Glob source and doc files. For broad audit: sample public API modules, README, docs/ directory, and most-changed files.
Identify project language, then load reference.md for language-specific doc conventions (Rust: RFC 1574 + rustdoc, Python: PEP 257, JS/TS: JSDoc/TSDoc, Go: godoc).
Read references/categories.md for detailed checks. For each category: collect evidence, assign score 0.0-1.0, note specific file:line findings.
Read references/scoring.md for the DQI formula, Doc Debt Score, maturity level mapping, named anti-patterns, and comparative benchmarks.
DQI = Σ(wᵢ × sᵢ) / Σ(wᵢ) × 10Finding tier and confidence semantics are canonical in ../shared/triage.md (Tier 3/2/1 + GRADE + triangulation). D-dimension findings carry tier and confidence so cli-cycle can aggregate without re-parsing.
# Documentation Quality Audit — {project-name}
**Target**: [file/directory] | **Language**: [detected] | **Date**: [date]
**DQI Score**: X.X/10 — {verdict} | **Doc Debt**: X% ({color})
**Maturity Level**: {1-5} — {name}
## Scores by Category
| # | Category | Weight | Score | Weighted | Findings |
|---|----------|--------|-------|----------|----------|
| C1-C12 rows with 0.0-1.0 scores... |
| | **DQI** | **100%** | | **X.X/10** | |
## Anti-Patterns Detected
| Pattern | Severity | File:Line | Recommendation |
## Critical Violations (must fix)
### [Category]: [violation title]
- **File**: `path/to/file:123`
- **What**: [description]
- **Rule**: [which standard it violates]
- **Fix**: [concrete suggestion]
## Good Practices Found
[positive reinforcement]
## Recommended Next Steps
1. [highest-impact fix first]| cli-audit-doc | cli-audit-sync |
|---|---|
| Is the doc well-written? | Is the doc accurate? |
| Quality of prose, structure, coverage | Coherence between doc and code |
| "This doc comment is vague" | "This doc comment references a deleted function" |
Both complement each other. Run cli-audit-doc for quality, cli-audit-sync for accuracy.
| Condition detected | Recommend | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Doc anti-pattern "The Lie" (docs describe nonexistent features) | /cli-audit-sync | Verify doc-code coherence |
| Missing architecture explanation | /cli-forge-doc | Generate architecture docs |
| README score low | /cli-forge-readme | Rewrite README |
| Missing diagrams referenced in docs | /cli-forge-schema | Generate Mermaid diagrams |
Rule: Recommend, don't auto-execute.
cli-forge-doc to generate documentationcli-audit-sync for thatcli-audit-code for that| Skill | Relationship |
|---|---|
cli-audit-sync | Checks doc accuracy. cli-audit-doc checks doc quality |
cli-audit-code | Scores code quality. cli-audit-doc scores doc quality |
cli-forge-doc | Generates docs. cli-audit-doc audits existing docs |
cli-cycle | Calls cli-audit-doc as part of full project review; emit .claude/cli-audit-doc.json per ../shared/result-schema.md for orchestrator aggregation |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.