本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

ensure-docs

Verify documentation coverage and generate missing docs interactively

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md5.6 KB
  • references/workflow.md12.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Ensure Documentation Coverage

Verify documentation coverage across a codebase, report gaps, and generate missing docs. If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one verifier per detected language in parallel; otherwise run the same per-language verification sequentially — the output is identical either way.

Coverage has two complementary lenses, and a healthy project needs both:

  1. Symbol coverage — are the functions, classes, and modules documented to the language's standard (docstrings, JSDoc, GoDoc)? This is the per-language verification below.
  2. Diataxis type balance — does the doc set as a whole serve all four user needs: a Tutorial to learn, How-To guides for tasks, Reference for lookups, and Explanation for understanding? A codebase can have 100% docstring coverage and still have no way for a newcomer to get started. See the Diataxis balance check below.

Workflow

Complete steps in order. Do not advance until each step’s Pass is satisfied.

  1. Language detection — Follow Phase 1 (language detection) in references/workflow.md.

    • Pass: For each language you will verify, you have evidence of at least one matching source file (counts or command output); if none qualify, stop with a short “no applicable languages” message and do not run verifiers.
  2. Load standards — Read the sections for your detected languages (language standards, verifier prompts, consolidation format) in the same reference file.

    • Pass: You can state which standard applies per language (e.g. Google docstrings, JSDoc, GoDoc) before verification begins.
  3. Verification — Verify each qualifying language using the verifier prompts and JSON output shape in the reference (Phase 2). If the agent supports subagents, run one verifier per language in parallel; otherwise run them sequentially.

    • Pass: Each completed verification returns parseable JSON including language, files_scanned, and findings (array, possibly empty).
  4. Diataxis balance check — Run the Diataxis type balance check against the project's existing docs (e.g. a docs/ tree, README, or wiki).

    • Pass: You can state, for each of the four types (Tutorial, How-To, Reference, Explanation), whether the project has at least one document serving that need, and you have noted any missing or thin type.
  5. Consolidated report — Merge results per Phase 3 (summary table, severity grouping, detailed findings if requested). Include the Diataxis balance alongside symbol coverage.

    • Pass: The user sees the merged report (inline or written to an agreed path) — covering both symbol coverage and Diataxis type balance — before you claim the audit is done or propose fixes.
  6. Generation — Only if --report-only is not set: offer choices per Phase 4; apply doc edits only after an explicit user choice to generate. For a missing Diataxis type, route generation through draft-docs for the relevant type rather than generating inline.

    • Pass: No documentation edits for gaps until the user selects an option that includes generation; if they decline or choose report-only behavior, end after the report.
  7. Post-edit verification — After any generation, run or offer the linter commands in Phase 5 of the reference for languages you changed, when those tools exist in the repo.

    • Pass: Linter run completed with output captured, or N/A with a one-line reason (e.g. tool not configured); remaining issues are listed or cleared.

Diataxis Type Balance Check

Survey the project's prose documentation (a docs/ tree, README, wiki, or doc site) and classify what exists into the four Diataxis types. Use the compass to classify — action or cognition? acquisition or application? — per docs-style/references/diataxis-compass.md.

Report the balance as a table:

TypePresent?Notes
Tutorial (learning)yes / no / thine.g. "No getting-started / first-project guide"
How-To (tasks)yes / no / thine.g. "Several task guides under docs/how-to/"
Reference (lookup)yes / no / thine.g. "API reference generated, but no CLI reference"
Explanation (understanding)yes / no / thine.g. "No architecture / design-rationale docs"

Flag, in priority order:

  1. A missing type — the doc set serves none of that user need. The most common and most damaging gap is a missing Tutorial: a project can have exhaustive reference and still leave a newcomer with no way in.
  2. A thin type — present but doesn't cover the project's major features or surfaces.
  3. Mixed documents — a single page trying to be two types at once (e.g. reference tables embedded in a how-to). Recommend splitting via improve-doc.

Do not propose generating empty skeletons for missing types. Following the Diataxis "work by improvement" principle, recommend the single highest-value document to add or fix next, and offer to draft it via draft-docs.

Notes

  • Use --report-only to skip generation.
  • Avoid test files unless they are test helpers.
  • Keep report output aligned with the language-specific standards in the reference file.
  • The Diataxis balance check is about the doc set as a whole; per-language symbol coverage and type balance are independent — report both.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Vercel AI Elements for workflow UI components. Use when building chat interfaces, displaying tool execution, showing reasoning/thinking, or creating job queues. Triggers on ai-elements, Queue, Confirmation, Tool, Reasoning, Shimmer, Loader, Message, Conversation, PromptInput.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Reviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

existential-birds のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する