nickcrew/doc-completeness-audit

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:

1. Exact match — a dedicated section or page covers this topic
2. 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)
3. 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