Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

ln-600-docs-auditorln 600 文档审核员

Agent Skill

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

总安装

1,164

周安装

49

GitHub Stars

441

下载量

408
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ln-600-docs-auditor(ln 600 文档审核员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-600-docs-auditor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-600-docs-auditor
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-600-docs-auditor

简介

用于文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,适合提炼结构和统一术语。

  • 适用于需要补齐章节、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档的场景。
  • 使用时保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不把未确认信息写成确定结论。
  • 涉及对外文案时需控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,确保不会触发不必要的网络或文件操作。

SKILL.md

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root.

Documentation Auditor

Audit project documentation quality. Universal for any tech stack.

Purpose

  • Proactively compress - find all opportunities to reduce size while preserving value
  • Eliminate meaningless, redundant, and verbose content
  • Convert prose to structured formats (tables, lists)
  • Verify documentation hierarchy with CLAUDE.md as root
  • Detect duplication and enforce Single Source of Truth
  • Ensure docs match current code state
  • Semantic verification - delegate to ln-601 to verify content matches SCOPE and codebase reality

Invocation

  • Direct: User invokes for documentation quality review
  • Pipeline: Called by ln-100-documents-pipeline (Phase 5, if auditDocs=true)

Workflow

  1. Scan: Find all.md files in project (CLAUDE.md, README.md, docs/**)
  2. Build Tree: Construct hierarchy from CLAUDE.md outward links
  3. Audit Categories 1-7: Run structural checks (see Audit Categories below)
  4. Semantic Audit (Category 8): For each project document, delegate to ln-601-semantic-content-auditor
  5. Score: Calculate X/10 per category (including semantic scores from ln-601)
  6. Context Validation: Post-filter findings (see below)
  7. Report: Output findings and recommended actions

Phase 4: Semantic Audit Delegation

For each project document (excluding tasks/, reference/, presentation/):

FOR doc IN [CLAUDE.md, docs/README.md, docs/project/*.md]:
    result = DELEGATE ln-601-semantic-content-auditor {
        doc_path: doc,
        project_root: project_root,
        tech_stack: detected_stack
    }
    semantic_findings.append(result.findings)
    semantic_scores[doc] = result.scores

Target documents: CLAUDE.md, docs/README.md, docs/documentation_standards.md, docs/principles.md, docs/project/*.md

Excluded: docs/tasks/, docs/reference/, docs/presentation/, tests/

Audit Categories

#CategoryWhat to Check
1Hierarchy & LinksCLAUDE.md is root; all docs reachable via links; no orphaned files; no broken links
2Single Source of TruthNo content duplication; duplicates replaced with links to source; clear ownership
3Proactive CompressionEliminate verbose/redundant content; prose→tables; remove meaningless info; compress even under-limit files; see size_limits.md
4Requirements ComplianceCorrect sections; within size limits; no code blocks (tables/ASCII diagrams/text only); stack-appropriate doc links
5Actuality (CRITICAL)Verify facts against code: paths exist, functions match, APIs work, configs valid; outdated docs are worse than none
6Legacy CleanupNo history sections; no "was changed" notes; no deprecated info; current state only
7Stack AdaptationLinks/refs match project stack; no Python examples in.NET project; official docs for correct platform
8Semantic ContentDelegated to ln-601: Content matches SCOPE; serves project goals; descriptions match actual code behavior; architecture/API docs reflect reality

Context Validation (Post-Filter)

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/context_validation.md

Apply Rule 1 + doc-specific inline filters:

FOR EACH finding WHERE severity IN (HIGH, MEDIUM):
  # Rule 1: ADR/Planned Override
  IF finding matches ADR → advisory "[Planned: ADR-XXX]"

  # Doc-specific: Compression context
  IF Cat 3 (Compression) finding:
    - Skip if path in references/ or templates/ (reference docs = naturally large)
    - Skip if filename contains architecture/design/api_spec
    - Skip if tables+lists > 50% of content (already structured, not verbose prose)

  # Doc-specific: Actuality severity calibration
  IF Cat 5 (Actuality) finding:
    - Path/function COMPLETELY missing → CRITICAL (broken docs)
    - Path exists but deprecated/renamed → HIGH (not CRITICAL)
    - Example code outdated but concept valid → MEDIUM

Downgraded findings → "Advisory Findings" section in report.

Output Format

## Documentation Audit Report - [DATE]

### Compliance Score

| Category | Score | Issues |
|----------|-------|--------|
| Hierarchy & Links | X/10 | N issues found |
| Single Source of Truth | X/10 | N duplications |
| Proactive Compression | X/10 | N compression opportunities |
| Requirements Compliance | X/10 | N violations |
| Actuality | X/10 | N mismatches with code |
| Legacy Cleanup | X/10 | N legacy items |
| Stack Adaptation | X/10 | N stack mismatches |
| Semantic Content | X/10 | N semantic issues (via ln-601) |
| **Overall** | **X/10** | |

### Critical Findings

- [ ] **[Category]** `path/file.md:line` - Issue description. **Action:** Fix suggestion.

### Recommended Actions

| Priority | Action | Location | Category |
|----------|--------|----------|----------|
| High | Remove duplicate section | docs/X.md | SSOT |
| Medium | Add link to CLAUDE.md | docs/Y.md | Hierarchy |

Scoring Algorithm

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_scoring.md for unified scoring formula.

Severity mapping:

Issue TypeSeverity
Outdated content (code mismatch)CRITICAL
Broken links, orphaned docsHIGH
Semantic mismatch (via ln-601)HIGH
Content duplicationMEDIUM
Missing compression opportunityLOW

Reference Files

Definition of Done

  • All.md files in project scanned and hierarchy tree built from CLAUDE.md
  • Categories 1-7 (structural) audited with score X/10 each
  • Category 8 (semantic) delegated to ln-601 for each target document; scores collected
  • Overall Compliance Score calculated (average of 8 categories)
  • Critical Findings listed with file:line, category, and fix suggestion
  • Recommended Actions table generated with priority, action, location, category

Critical Notes

  • Fix content, not rules: NEVER modify standards/rules files (*_standards.md, *_rules.md, *_limits.md) to make violations pass. Always fix the violating files instead.
  • Verify facts against code: Actively check every path, function name, API, config mentioned in docs. Run commands. Outdated docs mislead - they're worse than no docs.
  • Compress always: Size limits are upper bounds, not targets. A 100-line file instead of 300 is a win. Always look for compression opportunities.
  • Meaningless content: Remove filler words, obvious statements, over-explanations. If it doesn't add value, delete it.
  • No code in docs: Documents describe algorithms in tables or ASCII diagrams. Code belongs in codebase.

- Forbidden: Code blocks, implementation snippets - Allowed: Tables, ASCII diagrams, Mermaid, method signatures (1 line) - Instead of code: "See Official docs" or "See src/file.cs:42"

  • Format Priority: Tables/ASCII > Lists (enumerations only) > Text (last resort)
  • Stack adaptation: Verify all documentation references match project stack..NET project must not have Python examples. Check official doc links point to correct platform (Microsoft docs for C#, MDN for JS, etc.)
  • Code is truth: When docs contradict code, always update docs. Never "fix" code to match documentation.
  • SSOT re-verification after fixes: After making ANY documentation change, re-check that the fix maintains Single Source of Truth. If content exists in multiple files, keep it in the canonical source only and replace other occurrences with a link to that source (e.g., See [section](path#anchor)). Never duplicate content inline — always link. Canonical source hierarchy: CLAUDE.md → docs/README.md → docs/project/*.md → docs/reference/*.md.
  • Delete, don't archive: Legacy content should be removed, not moved to "archive"
  • No history: Documents describe current state only; git tracks history

Version: 4.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-28

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

25.74%
按下载量换算105

Gemini CLI

23.25%
按下载量换算95

Codex

17.44%
按下载量换算71

OpenCode

13.09%
按下载量换算53

Antigravity

7.49%
按下载量换算31

windsurf

3.52%
按下载量换算14

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills