/ln-53-documentation-auditor

name: ln-53-documentation-auditor
description: "Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only."

Documentation Auditor

**Goal:** Audit documentation as a read-only evidence system: can a new contributor, operator, user, or coding agent find the right source, trust its claims, and act without hidden context? Review both standalone documents and code comments where they carry public or operational knowledge.

**Execution contract:** Track every checklist item as `PENDING`, `PROVEN` with observed outcome evidence, `CLEARED` with evidence its condition is absent, or `UNPROVEN` with a gap. Reading, delegation, tool failure, zero exit status, and self-reported success are not proof. Reconcile after each section; before returning, resolve all `PENDING`, count only `PROVEN` and `CLEARED`, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve intent, scope, mode, and existing authorization. Complete authorized work before required external approval; ask only consequential unresolved choices. If nobody can answer, report the exact question and apply the skill's gap verdict without waiting or guessing. Cite any blocking instruction and unresolved boundary; never invent approval gates. Scale depth to material risk; preserve mandatory checks, dependencies, and safety order while choosing verification methods. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence without requiring another skill, named artifact, or full lifecycle. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant versions, dirty changes, configuration, environment, and observation windows; invalidate only affected claims. Choose the primary workflow by outcome and explicit selection. Consume neighboring contracts and valid evidence without duplicating ownership or restarting audits. Split distinct deliverables by scope, not mandatory skill invocation. Broad independent assessments use audit workflows; focused domain reviews remain read-only. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, state, and gaps. Return a compact continuation record for long work or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Trace applicable requirements to their authoritative owner, planned or implemented change, acceptance evidence and status in the existing artifact or response; no new registry is required. Explicit constraints remain binding until an authorized deviation; risk determines priority, not permission to ignore them. Investigate the causal flow beyond initially named files. Within implementation authority, include structural repair needed for the outcome; minimize total complexity and risk, not changed lines. This does not authorize unrelated cleanup or mutation during review. Before retrieval, define the evidence question; read selectively without skipping applicable instructions. Use tools for mechanical processing; summarize bounded results, errors, coverage, and source paths, keeping full output outside context. Before technical decisions, establish applicability and actual versions; verify version-dependent assumptions against official documentation or specifications. Search and read primary pages for current external recommendations; snippets are not evidence. Version-matched bundled documentation or valid prior evidence suffices. Record decision, version, source, and limitations. Mark unavailable evidence UNVERIFIED; block only essential dependent work. Prefer native mechanisms, justify added tools or abstractions with evidence, and reuse the existing rule owner.

Tool Routing

| Need | Preferred tool | Use it when | Fallback | |---|---|---|---| | Document inventory and hierarchy | Native file listing with narrow patterns | Establishing documentation surfaces, generated areas, and navigation structure | Repository tree and known entry documents | | Links, repeated terms, claims, and contradictions | Native text search, then focused reads | Finding references, stale names, duplicated guidance, paths, commands, and configuration keys | Manual cross-document comparison | | Code and configuration truth | Native code search, manifests, schemas, and direct file reads | A document claims that a path, option, endpoint, behavior, or default exists | Execute a safe inspection command when text is insufficient | | Freshness and ownership | Git log, blame, and diff | Determining when a claim changed, whether a document tracks active code, or who owns a convention | Current code and explicit ownership files | | Commands and examples | Shell in non-mutating or dry-run mode | Verifying help text, command existence, config parsing, generated output, or example syntax | Inspect command registration and tests; mark runtime proof unavailable | | External facts | Official documentation, specifications, and release notes | A current external API, version, standard, or platform behavior affects correctness | Primary-source web research; otherwise mark `UNVERIFIED` |

Do not run commands that publish, migrate, deploy, write production state, or rewrite documentation. Generated caches are acceptable only when permitted and disclosed.

Workflow Boundary

This workflow assesses documentation trust without editing. Project-rule creation is artifact authoring, and skill behavioral review is a different outcome. Report conflicting owners with evidence instead of creating a new normative registry.

Evidence Rules

| Claim type | Required evidence | |---|---| | Repository path, symbol, command, configuration, endpoint, or default | Current repository or safe command output | | External API, version, standard, or compatibility statement | Official source matching the relevant version | | Count or coverage statement | Reproducible query with scope and exclusions | | Historical rationale | Current decision record or history that still matches implementation | | Recomm