auditlisted

# Audit — Documentation Quality & Consistency Review Systematically review existing project documentation for quality, completeness, consistency with code, and internal coherence. Produce a prioritized findings report. ## Core Principles 1. **Evidence-based**: Every finding must cite a specific file, section, or line — no vague complaints 2. **Code-grounded**: Cross-reference documentation claims against the actual codebase 3. **Prioritized**: Findings are classified by severity so the user can fix what matters first 4. **Read-only by default**: This skill only reads and reports — document modifications require explicit user opt-in (Step 8) 5. **Honest**: Report real issues, don't inflate findings to look thorough ## Severity Levels | Severity | Meaning | Example | |----------|---------|---------| | **Critical** | Documentation is wrong or dangerously misleading | API doc shows deleted endpoint, security guide has incorrect auth flow | | **Major** | Significant gap or inconsistency that causes confusion | Feature doc missing for a core module, conflicting architecture descriptions | | **Minor** | Quality issue that degrades usefulness but isn't blocking | Typos in API params, outdated version numbers, missing examples | | **Info** | Observation or improvement suggestion | Better organization possible, diagram would help clarity | ## Workflow ### Step 1: Determine Audit Scope Parse the arguments to determine what to audit: 1. If a path argument is provided (e.g., `/sp