视觉画布设计
canvas-design
基于设计原则创作静态视觉作品,用于海报与品牌图形。
qa-docs-coverage【文档与办公】Audits and enforces documentation quality. Use when checking coverage, freshness, runbook validity, AI-instruction coverage, or cleaning stale/duplicate markdown after LLM edits.
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
Use this skill to audit documentation as a quality system: discover what should exist, map what exists, rank the gaps, and add checks so critical documentation does not regress. It complements docs-codebase, which is better for writing or restructuring the docs you decide to fix.
| Task | Use |
|---|---|
| Discovery and audit flow | references/discovery-patterns.md, references/audit-workflows.md |
| Prioritization and metrics | references/priority-framework.md, references/documentation-quality-metrics.md |
| AI-instruction, llms.txt, and freshness checks | references/ai-instruction-coverage.md, references/freshness-tracking.md |
| Runbook and contract validation | references/runbook-testing.md, references/api-docs-validation.md |
| CI/CD gates | references/cicd-integration.md |
| Scripts and templates | scripts/check_local_links.py, scripts/check_external_links.py, scripts/docs_freshness_report.py, assets/coverage-report-template.md, assets/documentation-backlog-template.md |
llms.txt at the relevant site path helps agents find the canonical pages; the format also permits path-scoped files such as /docs/llms.txt.inventory, static, executed, or operator-validated; Markdown, links, and command syntax do not prove that a runbook reaches its stated end state.Use three priority levels:
Default policy — this is the canonical freshness threshold set for this skill; the thresholds
in freshness-tracking.md, scripts/docs_freshness_report.py,
and CI examples all use it:
docs_freshness_report.py --fail-on P1 (the script's default) so CI fails only on stale P1 docs.A coverage percentage is a screening signal, not a verdict — see api-docs-validation.md for the spot-check method and the same trap in AI-generated test coverage.
Component type (P1/P2/P3) sets a floor, not the whole ranking. Within a tier, real usage signal sequences the work: support-ticket/Slack-question frequency for a topic can outrank component type (a P3 config option with two tickets a week beats an undocumented P2 service nobody has asked about); onboarding friction is a leading indicator even with no ticket filed; an incident postmortem citing "unclear docs" re-prioritizes that doc to P1 regardless of its original tier; and absence of signal is not evidence of low priority — cross-check against the roadmap, since it can mean nobody has discovered they need the component yet.
Documentation has a maintenance cost; do not recommend it reflexively. Skip inline docs for code that is self-evident from its name, type signature, and context (flag as "appropriately undocumented," not a gap). Skip a dedicated page for a component with a single internal caller and no independent failure mode. Prefer fixing a confusing interface over documenting around it. Do not recommend documenting deprecated or soon-to-be-removed components; recommend removal or an explicit deprecation notice instead.
Critical docs should have enough metadata to re-verify them: owner, last verified date, review cadence, related code paths or systems. For multi-repo hubs, freshness should follow repo sync events, not only a calendar schedule.
A doc can be young by last_verified and still be wrong — see
freshness-tracking.md for the rot
signals (vanished identifier, silent code drift, contradicted example, ticket conflict) and why
a rot signal should override a fresh badge.
An owner listed in frontmatter is necessary but not sufficient. Judge whether the ownership model creates a feedback loop: author-owns-until-handoff (fails once the author moves teams), docs-on-call rotation (survives turnover), CODEOWNERS-enforced (catches drift at commit time), team-charter-embedded (survives turnover best). A named owner with no enforcement mechanism is the weakest model — flag it as a gap, not just an owner-present checkbox.
Runbooks are only acceptable if someone new can execute them and reach a clear end state.
Test runbooks (P1 when stale) must declare: the canonical dev-server or environment bootstrap command, the canonical targeted spec or batch command, the canonical cleanup or reset command, the canonical deploy-gate replay command, and artifact locations for traces, logs, or failure context. Treat stale "run the whole suite first" guidance as P1 when it materially wastes time, causes environment collisions, or bypasses the intended deploy-gate flow.
Instruction-file audits should verify: the active agent/runtime files actually match the tools in use (see ai-instruction-coverage.md for Claude Code and Codex specifics), duplicated instruction layers are intentional, external claims have sources and verification dates, and AI-generated edits still match the current code and workflow reality.
When prior decisions or pitfalls are relevant, consult learnings.consolidated.md if present; use learnings.md only for needed history or as the available fallback. Otherwise skip both.
After applying it, if you encountered a pattern worth remembering, a mistake worth preventing, or a domain fact that surprised you, append one dated bullet to learnings.md via agents-skills-feedback-loop/scripts/append_learning.py. Do not modify SKILL.md itself.