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.
npx skills add PracticalSwan/agent-skills --skill documentation-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PracticalSwan/agent-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-quality/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-quality.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 84 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
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.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00034 | $0.01082 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00433 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00216 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
documentation-quality 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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Documentation Quality Standards
Use this skill when documentation should be judged against explicit standards instead of subjective preference.
- Leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.
Activation Conditions
Use symptom -> action triggers: when one matches, apply this skill and verify with the protocol below.
- Reviewing docs before merge
- Creating or updating a style guide
- Defining expectations for examples, structure, and terminology
- Auditing a docs set for consistency and readability
Core Standards
- Clear audience and scope
- Stable heading hierarchy
- Runnable or honest examples
- Consistent terminology
- Explicit edge cases, constraints, and failure modes
Documentation Stack Reference
Inherit the shared stack from documentation-patterns: source-of-truth discovery, audience framing, structure selection, verification, and freshness checks. Keep this skill focused on quality gates instead of restating the full stack.
Cross-Client Portability
This skill is written to stay usable across GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and Codex.
- GitHub Copilot: keep the folder in a Copilot-visible skill path or wrap the workflow in project instructions when folder discovery is unavailable.
- Claude Code: keep the folder in a local skills directory or a compatible plugin source.
- Codex: install or sync the folder into
$CODEX_HOME/skills/documentation-qualityand restart Codex after major changes.
MCP Availability And Fallback
Preferred MCP Server: None required
- Fallback prompt: "Use the Documentation Quality Standards skill without MCP. Rely on its local instructions, bundled resources, standard shell or editor tools, and direct verification. Show the evidence used before concluding."
- Do not claim an MCP operation was used when the active host does not expose it.
- Treat local files, tests, rendered outputs, logs, or screenshots as the fallback evidence path.
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed d8f05cc2548c
- 1mo ago Changed 7bccb37f8350
- 1mo ago Changed 87f07add3a7b
- 1mo ago First seen · 115 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A fc3c26c5e37d
documentation-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository PracticalSwan/agent-skills (21 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,082 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
librechat-docs
Use the official LibreChat documentation to install, configure, operate, and troubleshoot LibreChat.
river-review-docs
A documentation review guide for checking whether project instructions and documentation match the code. It also compares Japanese and English documentation and checks that important terms are used consistently.
markdown-search
Search and navigate local markdown via MCP. Use when the user asks to search docs, find a README section, list headings/TOC, extract code examples by language, read frontmatter, or grep internal wikis and ADRs on disk.
doc-quality-review
Assess documentation quality across readability, consistency, audience fit, and prose clarity. Produces a scored review with actionable findings. This skill should be used before releases, during doc reviews, or when documentation feels unclear or inconsistent.
doc-claim-validator
Validate that claims in documentation match codebase reality. Extracts verifiable assertions (file paths, commands, function references, behavioral claims, dependencies) from markdown docs and checks them against the actual project. Use after code changes, before releases, or when docs feel untrustworthy.
docverity
Check whether a project's documentation still matches its code, and report stale or wrong claims with suggested fixes. Use this after editing, renaming, moving, or deleting source files, CLI flags, environment variables, or functions, to catch docs you may have just made inaccurate; when the user asks whether the…