Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to shift-editor/shift. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/shift-editor/shift/main/.claude/skills/docs-audit/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shift-editor/shiftWrote 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/shift-editor/shift/docs-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shift-editor/shift/docs-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shift-editor/shift/docs-audit/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/shift-editor/shift/docs-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shift-editor/shift/docs-audit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00069 | $0.00727 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00291 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
docs-audit 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 — 36 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/docs-audit — Adversarial Documentation Audit
scripts/context-drift-check.py proves referential integrity (links, symbols, commands, codemap paths, structure). It cannot prove that prose is TRUE. This skill is the semantic layer: read the doc, read the module, and try to refute every checkable claim.
Scope
Given no arguments, audit the DOCS.md files whose reviewed: date is oldest or overdue (the checker's stale warnings list them). Given a module or doc path, audit that doc. A full-repo audit fans out one subagent per doc (they are independent — run them in parallel).
On a scheduled run, guard first — before installing dependencies or reading any docs:
git log --oneline --since='8 days ago' -- crates packages apps '**/docs/DOCS.md' docs/architecture
No output (or only commits whose changes are all outside those paths — CI config, lockfiles, release chores) means nothing meaningful changed: report "no source or docs commits since ; audit skipped" and stop. When there are meaningful commits, prioritize the docs whose modules those commits touched.
Procedure per doc
- Run the mechanical checkers first — don't spend audit effort on what they already catch:
python3 scripts/context-drift-check.py,node scripts/check-docs-fences.mjs,python3 scripts/check-invariants.py. - Extract the doc's concrete checkable claims: architecture invariants, Key Types descriptions, Codemap one-liners, How-it-works statements, Gotchas, Workflow recipe steps. Prioritize the ~12 most load-bearing claims; cover long-standing content, not just recent edits.
- Verify each claim by reading the actual source — never by plausibility. For behavioral claims (ordering, caching, skipping, round-trips), trace the code path; where cheap, verify numerically or by running the referenced test.
- Classify: TRUE (verified), FALSE (contradicted — cite doc line and source file:line), MISLEADING/STALE (real symbols, wrong or superseded behavior), UNVERIFIABLE (pure rationale — fine, leave it).
- Watch for the known rot patterns: superseded API narratives (per-method flows replaced by batch entry points), mechanisms attributed to the wrong symbol, behavior claims inverted by edge cases (wrapping, malformed input), and codemap entries for moved responsibilities.
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 First seen · 36 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 47a240a46861
docs-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository shift-editor/shift (379 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 727 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-audit
Systematic architecture audit and refactoring methodology for Rust + TypeScript codebases. Use when performing refactoring, cleanup, unification, code review, dead code removal, module reorganization, or tech debt elimination. Ensures no naming confusion, semantic overloading, hidden defaults, duplicate logic, or…
improve-codebase-architecture
Scans git commit hot spots for shallow modules, generates visual HTML reports with Mermaid diagrams, and drills into refactoring candidates.
code-review-checklist
Systematic code review audit engine and master rubric across logic, security hardening, performance, clean-code adherence, and test coverage.
code-review
Two-axis parallel code review comparing HEAD against a fixed point. Axis 1 (Standards) audits repo conventions and Fowler smells; Axis 2 (Spec) verifies line-by-line requirements coverage.
code-review-graph
Token-efficient code review using Tree-sitter AST graphs and MCP. Reduces AI assistant token usage by up to 49x by computing blast radius instead of reading entire folders.
adg-governance
Active Documentation Guard (ADG v2) protocol, machine-maintained witness manifests, AST symbol blast radius analysis, and parity guard compliance.