ln-612-semantic-content-auditor
Scannednpx machina-cli add skill levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-612-semantic-content-auditor --openclawPaths: 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.
Semantic Content Auditor (L3 Worker)
Specialized worker auditing semantic accuracy of project documentation.
Purpose & Scope
- Worker in ln-610 coordinator pipeline - invoked by ln-610-docs-auditor for each project document
- Verify document content matches stated SCOPE (document purpose)
- Check content aligns with project goals (value contribution)
- Validate facts against codebase (accuracy and freshness)
- Return structured findings to coordinator with severity, location, fix suggestions
Target Documents
Called ONLY for project documents (not reference/tasks):
| Document | Verification Focus |
|---|---|
CLAUDE.md | Instructions match project structure, paths valid |
docs/README.md | Navigation accurate, descriptions match reality |
docs/documentation_standards.md | Standards applicable to this project |
docs/principles.md | Principles reflected in actual code patterns |
docs/project/requirements.md | Requirements implemented or still valid |
docs/project/architecture.md | Architecture matches actual code structure |
docs/project/tech_stack.md | Versions/technologies match package files |
docs/project/api_spec.md | Endpoints/contracts match controllers |
docs/project/database_schema.md | Schema matches actual DB/migrations |
docs/project/design_guidelines.md | Components/styles exist in codebase |
docs/project/runbook.md | Commands work, paths valid |
Excluded: docs/tasks/, docs/reference/, docs/presentation/, tests/
Inputs (from Coordinator)
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/task_delegation_pattern.md#audit-coordinator--worker-contract for contextStore structure.
Receives from coordinator per invocation:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
doc_path | Path to document to audit (e.g., docs/project/architecture.md) |
output_dir | Directory for report output (from contextStore) |
project_root | Project root path |
tech_stack | Detected technology stack |
Workflow
Phase 1: SCOPE EXTRACTION
- Read document first 20 lines
- Parse
<!-- SCOPE: ... -->comment - If no SCOPE tag, infer from document type (see Verification Rules)
- Record stated purpose/boundaries
Phase 2: CONTENT-SCOPE ALIGNMENT
Analyze document sections against stated scope:
| Check | Finding Type |
|---|---|
| Section not serving scope | OFF_TOPIC |
| Scope aspect not covered | MISSING_COVERAGE |
| Excessive detail beyond scope | SCOPE_CREEP |
| Content duplicated elsewhere | SSOT_VIOLATION |
Scoring:
- 10/10: All content serves scope, scope fully covered
- 8-9/10: Minor off-topic content or small gaps
- 6-7/10: Some sections not aligned, partial coverage
- 4-5/10: Significant misalignment, major gaps
- 1-3/10: Document does not serve its stated purpose
Phase 3: FACT VERIFICATION
Per document type, verify claims against codebase:
| Document | Verification Method |
|---|---|
| architecture.md | Check layers exist (Glob for folders), verify imports follow described pattern (Grep) |
| tech_stack.md | Compare versions with package.json, go.mod, requirements.txt |
| api_spec.md | Match endpoints with controller/route files (Grep for routes) |
| requirements.md | Search for feature implementations (Grep for keywords) |
| database_schema.md | Compare with migration files or Prisma/TypeORM schemas |
| runbook.md | Validate file paths exist (Glob), test command syntax |
| principles.md | Sample code files for principle adherence patterns |
| CLAUDE.md | Verify referenced paths/files exist |
Finding Types:
- OUTDATED_PATH: File/folder path no longer exists
- WRONG_VERSION: Documented version differs from package file
- MISSING_ENDPOINT: Documented API endpoint not found in code
- BEHAVIOR_MISMATCH: Described behavior differs from implementation
- STALE_REFERENCE: Reference to removed/renamed entity
Scoring:
- 10/10: All facts verified against code
- 8-9/10: Minor inaccuracies (typos, formatting)
- 6-7/10: Some paths/names outdated, core info correct
- 4-5/10: Functional mismatches (wrong behavior described)
- 1-3/10: Critical mismatches (architecture wrong, APIs broken)
Phase 4: SCORING & REPORT
Calculate final scores and compile findings:
scope_alignment_score = weighted_average(coverage, relevance, focus)
fact_accuracy_score = (verified_facts / total_facts) * 10
overall_score = (scope_alignment * 0.4) + (fact_accuracy * 0.6)
Fact accuracy weighted higher because incorrect information is worse than scope drift.
Scoring Algorithm
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_scoring.md for unified scoring formula.
Output Format
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md for file format.
Write report to {output_dir}/612-semantic-{doc-slug}.md where doc-slug is derived from document filename (e.g., architecture, tech_stack, claude_md).
With category: "Semantic Content" and checks: scope_alignment, fact_accuracy.
Return summary to coordinator:
Report written: docs/project/.audit/ln-610/{YYYY-MM-DD}/612-semantic-architecture.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)
Verification Rules by Document Type
MANDATORY READ: Load references/verification_rules.md for per-document verification patterns.
Critical Rules
- Read before judge: Always read full document and relevant code before reporting issues
- Evidence required: Every finding must include
evidencefield with verification command/result - Code is truth: When docs contradict code, document is wrong (unless code is a bug)
- Scope inference: If no SCOPE tag, use document filename to infer expected scope
- No false positives: Better to miss an issue than report incorrectly
- Location precision: Always include line number for findings
- Actionable fixes: Every finding must have concrete fix suggestion
Definition of Done
- Document read completely
- SCOPE extracted or inferred
- Content-scope alignment analyzed
- Facts verified against codebase (with evidence)
- Score calculated using penalty algorithm
- Report written to
{output_dir}/612-semantic-{doc-slug}.md(atomic single Write call) - Summary returned to coordinator
Reference Files
- Worker report template:
shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md - Audit scoring formula:
shared/references/audit_scoring.md - Audit output schema:
shared/references/audit_output_schema.md - Verification rules: references/verification_rules.md
Version: 2.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-01
Source
git clone https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/blob/master/ln-612-semantic-content-auditor/SKILL.mdView on GitHub Overview
The Semantic Content Auditor (L3) validates that each project document matches its stated SCOPE, supports project goals, and accurately reflects the current codebase. It is invoked by the ln-610 coordinator for every project document and outputs a file-based report with scope_alignment and fact_accuracy scores.
How This Skill Works
On invocation, the auditor loads inputs (doc_path, output_dir, project_root, tech_stack) from the coordinator. It extracts the scope from the first 20 lines using a <!-- SCOPE: ... --> tag (or infers scope from document type), then checks sections for alignment and verifies facts against the codebase with filesystem queries (grep, glob). The result is a structured report including scope_alignment and fact_accuracy.
When to Use It
- When validating CLAUDE.md for instruction alignment with project structure and valid paths
- When auditing docs/README.md for accurate navigation and reality-aligned descriptions
- When verifying docs/project/architecture.md reflects the actual code structure
- When checking docs/project/api_spec.md endpoints match the controller/route implementations
- When ensuring docs/project/design_guidelines.md and runbook.md align with the codebase
Quick Start
- Step 1: Load inputs from the coordinator (doc_path, output_dir, project_root, tech_stack)
- Step 2: Parse the <!-- SCOPE: ... --> tag from the first 20 lines or infer scope from document type
- Step 3: Run scope_alignment and fact_verification checks and write the report to output_dir
Best Practices
- Anchor checks on the declared SCOPE to ensure consistent scope interpretation
- Prefer exact path validation and real code references over guesses
- Run audits per document in CI to prevent drift between docs and code
- Flag SSOT_VIOLATION when content is duplicated across multiple documents
- Provide clear severity, location, and fix suggestions for each finding
Example Use Cases
- Detected SSOT_VIOLATION where content is duplicated across CLAUDE.md and docs/README.md
- Scope CREEP identified in docs/project/architecture.md due to excessive implementation detail
- MISSING_COVERAGE found in docs/project/api_spec.md where routes are not described
- OFF_TOPIC sections in docs/project/runbook.md not contributing to project goals
- Fact mismatch where architecture.md claims a module exists that the codebase no longer includes