docs.analyze

A read-only audit command for checking the quality of project documentation. It produces a report covering accuracy, clarity, completeness, structure, and documentation coverage.

In plain words
What is it for?
For checking Diátaxis coverage, broken links, orphaned pages, placeholder text, TODO markers, and whether user journeys are documented. The report is saved to docs/_meta/analysis-report.md.
Why use it?
It finds documentation gaps and maintenance problems without changing the files being reviewed. Stable finding IDs make repeated audits easier to compare.

Command

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/ddunnock/claude-plugins/docs.analyze
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ddunnock/claude-plugins
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 202 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.00202
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00101
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00040
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00020

Measured 2d ago against content hash 8dc0d6cee6de, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

docs.analyze scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

skills/documentation-architect/commands/docs.analyze.md · 32 lines

What it actually says

Read-only audit of documentation quality.

Before Starting

Read and internalize the behavioral constraints in GUARDRAILS.md.

Characteristics

  • Read-only: Never modifies files
  • Deterministic: Same input = same output
  • Stable IDs: Finding IDs consistent across runs

Checks Performed

  • Document quality scores
  • Diátaxis coverage matrix
  • Broken links, orphan pages
  • TODO/placeholder markers
  • User journey coverage

Quality Metrics

Metric Weight Criteria
Accuracy 25% Claims verified, sources cited
Clarity 25% Scannable, examples present
Completeness 25% All sections, no TODOs
Structure 25% Follows quadrant template

Outputs

  • docs/_meta/analysis-report.md

Guardrails

  • Read-only, stable IDs
  • Source-grounded findings
Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 32 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8dc0d6cee6de

Subscribe to this mod's changes

docs.analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository ddunnock/claude-plugins (12 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 202 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.