docs-audit

docs-audit is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from willdady/platypus. It costs 32 tokens per session (1,105 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

Audit one section of the docs content against the code, and report what is wrong, stale, fragile, off-voice, or missing.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

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 skills/willdady/platypus/docs-audit
Any agent
npx skills add willdady/platypus --skill docs-audit
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/willdady/platypus

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for docs-audit

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/willdady/platypus/docs-audit.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/willdady/platypus/docs-audit)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/willdady/platypus/docs-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/willdady/platypus/docs-audit.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 32 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,105 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 $0.00032 $0.01105
Opus 5 $0.00016 $0.00553
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00221
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00111

Measured 2d ago against content hash 9e8c3255bddf, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 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.

.agents/skills/docs-audit/SKILL.md · 108 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Audit one section of apps/docs/content against the source, and report every claim that no longer holds.

apps/docs/content/docs-contract.test.ts already pins the claims with exactly one authoritative source — env tables, webhook events, core Plugin names, field limits, internal links, heading anchors. Assume those are green and do not re-check them. Your job is everything that needs judgement, above all the ~150 bolded UI labels across building-with-platypus/, which nothing can see.

Never answer from memory. Every verdict cites a file and a line in the code. A claim you did not open the source for is a claim you did not check.

Step 1 — Pick the section and build the suspect pool

Audit one section per run — one top-level directory of the docs content. List what is actually there rather than working from a remembered set, so a section added since cannot be the one you never audit. Ask the user which if they did not say.

Find when the section was last touched, then list what changed in the code since:

git log -1 --format=%H -- apps/docs/content/<section>
git log <that-sha>..HEAD --oneline -- apps/backend apps/frontend packages/schemas

Drift concentrates where code moved and docs did not, so read that commit list before you read the pages — it tells you which claims to distrust.

Done when: you have the section, the last-touch SHA, and the commit list.

Step 2 — List every claim

Read each page in the section in full. Then write out every falsifiable claim it makes, each with its file:line.

A claim is anything a reader could act on and find wrong: a UI label, a field name, a menu path, a default, a limit, an ordering, a behaviour, a "this requires that", a "you cannot do X".

List every claim, not a sample. Coverage has to be a property of the procedure, because it will not be a property of your attention. A page with sixty claims produces sixty rows.

Done when: every page in the section has been read end to end and every claim is on the list with a line number.

Read the full file on GitHub · 108 lines

Files

What ships with it

1 file 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.

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 · 108 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 9e8c3255bddf

Subscribe to this mod's changes

docs-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository willdady/platypus (69 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,105 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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.