Claude-skill-registry ln-601-semantic-content-auditor
Semantic content auditor (L3 Worker). Verifies document content matches stated SCOPE, aligns with project goals, and reflects actual codebase state. Called by ln-600 for each project document. Returns scope_alignment and fact_accuracy scores with findings.
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/ln-601-semantic-content-auditor" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-ln-601-semantic-content-auditor && rm -rf "$T"
skills/data/ln-601-semantic-content-auditor/SKILL.mdSemantic Content Auditor (L3 Worker)
Specialized worker auditing semantic accuracy of project documentation.
Purpose & Scope
- Worker in ln-600 coordinator pipeline - invoked by ln-600-docs-auditor for each project document
- Verify document content matches stated SCOPE (document purpose)
- Check content aligns with project goals (value contribution)
- Validate facts against codebase (accuracy and freshness)
- Return structured findings to coordinator with severity, location, fix suggestions
Target Documents
Called ONLY for project documents (not reference/tasks):
| Document | Verification Focus |
|---|---|
| Instructions match project structure, paths valid |
| Navigation accurate, descriptions match reality |
| Standards applicable to this project |
| Principles reflected in actual code patterns |
| Requirements implemented or still valid |
| Architecture matches actual code structure |
| Versions/technologies match package files |
| Endpoints/contracts match controllers |
| Schema matches actual DB/migrations |
| Components/styles exist in codebase |
| Commands work, paths valid |
Excluded:
docs/tasks/, docs/reference/, docs/presentation/, tests/
Inputs (from Coordinator)
{ "doc_path": "docs/project/architecture.md", "project_root": "/path/to/project", "tech_stack": { "language": "TypeScript", "frameworks": ["Express", "React"] } }
Workflow
Phase 1: SCOPE EXTRACTION
- Read document first 20 lines
- Parse
comment<!-- SCOPE: ... --> - If no SCOPE tag, infer from document type (see Verification Rules)
- Record stated purpose/boundaries
Phase 2: CONTENT-SCOPE ALIGNMENT
Analyze document sections against stated scope:
| Check | Finding Type |
|---|---|
| Section not serving scope | OFF_TOPIC |
| Scope aspect not covered | MISSING_COVERAGE |
| Excessive detail beyond scope | SCOPE_CREEP |
| Content duplicated elsewhere | SSOT_VIOLATION |
Scoring:
- 10/10: All content serves scope, scope fully covered
- 8-9/10: Minor off-topic content or small gaps
- 6-7/10: Some sections not aligned, partial coverage
- 4-5/10: Significant misalignment, major gaps
- 1-3/10: Document does not serve its stated purpose
Phase 3: FACT VERIFICATION
Per document type, verify claims against codebase:
| Document | Verification Method |
|---|---|
| architecture.md | Check layers exist (Glob for folders), verify imports follow described pattern (Grep) |
| tech_stack.md | Compare versions with package.json, go.mod, requirements.txt |
| api_spec.md | Match endpoints with controller/route files (Grep for routes) |
| requirements.md | Search for feature implementations (Grep for keywords) |
| database_schema.md | Compare with migration files or Prisma/TypeORM schemas |
| runbook.md | Validate file paths exist (Glob), test command syntax |
| principles.md | Sample code files for principle adherence patterns |
| CLAUDE.md | Verify referenced paths/files exist |
Finding Types:
- OUTDATED_PATH: File/folder path no longer exists
- WRONG_VERSION: Documented version differs from package file
- MISSING_ENDPOINT: Documented API endpoint not found in code
- BEHAVIOR_MISMATCH: Described behavior differs from implementation
- STALE_REFERENCE: Reference to removed/renamed entity
Scoring:
- 10/10: All facts verified against code
- 8-9/10: Minor inaccuracies (typos, formatting)
- 6-7/10: Some paths/names outdated, core info correct
- 4-5/10: Functional mismatches (wrong behavior described)
- 1-3/10: Critical mismatches (architecture wrong, APIs broken)
Phase 4: SCORING & REPORT
Calculate final scores and compile findings:
scope_alignment_score = weighted_average(coverage, relevance, focus) fact_accuracy_score = (verified_facts / total_facts) * 10 overall_score = (scope_alignment * 0.4) + (fact_accuracy * 0.6)
Fact accuracy weighted higher because incorrect information is worse than scope drift.
Output Format
Return JSON to coordinator:
{ "doc_path": "docs/project/architecture.md", "scope": { "stated": "System architecture with C4 diagrams, component interactions", "coverage_percent": 85 }, "scores": { "scope_alignment": 8, "fact_accuracy": 6, "overall": 7 }, "summary": { "total_issues": 4, "high": 1, "medium": 2, "low": 1 }, "findings": [ { "severity": "HIGH", "type": "BEHAVIOR_MISMATCH", "location": "line 45", "issue": "Architecture shows 3-tier (Controller->Service->Repository) but code has Controller->Repository direct calls", "evidence": "src/controllers/UserController.ts:23 imports UserRepository directly", "fix": "Update diagram to show actual pattern OR refactor code to match docs" }, { "severity": "MEDIUM", "type": "OUTDATED_PATH", "location": "line 78", "issue": "References src/services/legacy/ which was removed", "evidence": "Folder does not exist: ls src/services/legacy/ returns error", "fix": "Remove reference or update to current path" } ] }
Verification Rules by Document Type
See references/verification_rules.md for detailed per-document verification patterns.
Critical Rules
- Read before judge: Always read full document and relevant code before reporting issues
- Evidence required: Every finding must include
field with verification command/resultevidence - Code is truth: When docs contradict code, document is wrong (unless code is a bug)
- Scope inference: If no SCOPE tag, use document filename to infer expected scope
- No false positives: Better to miss an issue than report incorrectly
- Location precision: Always include line number for findings
- Actionable fixes: Every finding must have concrete fix suggestion
Definition of Done
- Document read completely
- SCOPE extracted or inferred
- Content-scope alignment analyzed
- Facts verified against codebase (with evidence)
- Both scores calculated
- JSON result returned to coordinator
Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-28