audit-comments

Audit comments and docstrings for misleading or redundant content.

10|5|Updated Mar 3, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/JHostalek/dotclaude --skill audit-comments
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: audit-comments
Source: https://github.com/JHostalek/dotclaude/tree/main/skills/audit-comments
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/JHostalek/dotclaude --skill audit-comments

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill helps identify comments, docstrings, and embedded documentation that are stale, misleading, redundant, or bloated while preserving prose that communicates important system constraints.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Architecture-Aware Review: Reconstruct components, boundaries, lifecycles, and documentation audiences before judging individual comments.
  • Comprehensive Coverage: Examine APIs, state transitions, domain rules, operations, tooling directives, accuracy, clarity, and missing consequential documentation.
  • Evidence-Based Findings: Classify issues as confirmed defects, worthwhile improvements, or unresolved questions and recommend the smallest safe correction.
  • Use Case: Review a codebase before release to remove outdated docstrings, retain security and concurrency rationale, and identify missing documentation for public interfaces.

Quick Start

Use the audit-comments skill to review comments and docstrings throughout the specified path, preserving only accurate and consequential documentation.

Frequently Asked Questions about audit-comments

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I remove stale comments and misleading docstrings during a code review?

To remove stale comments and misleading docstrings during a code review, audit the codebase to classify issues as confirmed defects or improvements, applying the smallest safe behavior-preserving edits while retaining consequential system intent.

What is the best way to audit technical debt in code documentation without losing system constraints?

Auditing technical debt in code documentation without losing system constraints requires top-down system reconstruction to separate misleading, bloated prose from vital architecture, lifecycle behavior, and domain rules before applying safe edits.

How do you identify missing documentation for public APIs and domain rules in a codebase?

Identify missing documentation for public APIs and domain rules by performing an architecture-aware review that examines state transitions, operations, and tooling directives, then explicitly reporting documentation gaps and unresolved questions.

Can I review embedded documentation prose to reduce bloat while preserving security and concurrency rationale?

Yes, you can review embedded documentation prose to reduce bloat while preserving security and concurrency rationale by evidence-backing findings, recommending minimal safe corrections, and excluding unrelated modifications through explicit reporting.

When should I not use an automated documentation audit for software maintenance?

You should not use an automated documentation audit when a codebase lacks established architectural boundaries, as the review requires top-down system reconstruction to accurately distinguish consequential system intent from redundant comments.