Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ln-600-docs-auditor(ln 600 文档审核员)

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

ln-600-docs-auditor 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 41,504。

总安装 1,164周安装 49GitHub Stars 441下载 408核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ln-600-docs-auditor(ln 600 文档审核员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-600-docs-auditor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-600-docs-auditor
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-600-docs-auditor

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,适合提炼结构和统一术语。适用于需要补齐章节、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档的场景。使用时保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不把未确认信息写成确定结论。涉及对外文案时需控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,确保不会触发不必要的网络或文件操作。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ln-600-docs-auditor

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-6…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

ln-600-docs-auditor 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-600-docs-au…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ln-600-docs-auditor 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ln-600-docs-auditor 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

ln-600-docs-auditor 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

ln-600-docs-auditor 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,164 次,近一周安装 49 次,下载 408 次,GitHub 441 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ln-600-docs-auditor 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
ln-600-docs-auditor

ln 600 文档审核员 · 本页

1,164441需要联网MIT通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root.

Documentation Auditor

Audit project documentation quality. Universal for any tech stack.

Purpose

  • Proactively compress - find all opportunities to reduce size while preserving value
  • Eliminate meaningless, redundant, and verbose content
  • Convert prose to structured formats (tables, lists)
  • Verify documentation hierarchy with CLAUDE.md as root
  • Detect duplication and enforce Single Source of Truth
  • Ensure docs match current code state
  • Semantic verification - delegate to ln-601 to verify content matches SCOPE and codebase reality

Invocation

  • Direct: User invokes for documentation quality review
  • Pipeline: Called by ln-100-documents-pipeline (Phase 5, if auditDocs=true)

Workflow

  1. Scan: Find all.md files in project (CLAUDE.md, README.md, docs/**)
  2. Build Tree: Construct hierarchy from CLAUDE.md outward links
  3. Audit Categories 1-7: Run structural checks (see Audit Categories below)
  4. Semantic Audit (Category 8): For each project document, delegate to ln-601-semantic-content-auditor
  5. Score: Calculate X/10 per category (including semantic scores from ln-601)
  6. Context Validation: Post-filter findings (see below)
  7. Report: Output findings and recommended actions

Phase 4: Semantic Audit Delegation

For each project document (excluding tasks/, reference/, presentation/):

FOR doc IN [CLAUDE.md, docs/README.md, docs/project/*.md]:
    result = DELEGATE ln-601-semantic-content-auditor {
        doc_path: doc,
        project_root: project_root,
        tech_stack: detected_stack
    }
    semantic_findings.append(result.findings)
    semantic_scores[doc] = result.scores

Target documents: CLAUDE.md, docs/README.md, docs/documentation_standards.md, docs/principles.md, docs/project/*.md

Excluded: docs/tasks/, docs/reference/, docs/presentation/, tests/

Audit Categories

#CategoryWhat to Check
1Hierarchy & LinksCLAUDE.md is root; all docs reachable via links; no orphaned files; no broken links
2Single Source of TruthNo content duplication; duplicates replaced with links to source; clear ownership
3Proactive CompressionEliminate verbose/redundant content; prose→tables; remove meaningless info; compress even under-limit files; see size_limits.md
4Requirements ComplianceCorrect sections; within size limits; no code blocks (tables/ASCII diagrams/text only); stack-appropriate doc links
5Actuality (CRITICAL)Verify facts against code: paths exist, functions match, APIs work, configs valid; outdated docs are worse than none
6Legacy CleanupNo history sections; no "was changed" notes; no deprecated info; current state only
7Stack AdaptationLinks/refs match project stack; no Python examples in.NET project; official docs for correct platform
8Semantic ContentDelegated to ln-601: Content matches SCOPE; serves project goals; descriptions match actual code behavior; architecture/API docs reflect reality

Context Validation (Post-Filter)

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/context_validation.md

Apply Rule 1 + doc-specific inline filters:

FOR EACH finding WHERE severity IN (HIGH, MEDIUM):
  # Rule 1: ADR/Planned Override
  IF finding matches ADR → advisory "[Planned: ADR-XXX]"

  # Doc-specific: Compression context
  IF Cat 3 (Compression) finding:
    - Skip if path in references/ or templates/ (reference docs = naturally large)
    - Skip if filename contains architecture/design/api_spec
    - Skip if tables+lists > 50% of content (already structured, not verbose prose)

  # Doc-specific: Actuality severity calibration
  IF Cat 5 (Actuality) finding:
    - Path/function COMPLETELY missing → CRITICAL (broken docs)
    - Path exists but deprecated/renamed → HIGH (not CRITICAL)
    - Example code outdated but concept valid → MEDIUM

Downgraded findings → "Advisory Findings" section in report.

Output Format

## Documentation Audit Report - [DATE]

### Compliance Score

| Category | Score | Issues |
|----------|-------|--------|
| Hierarchy & Links | X/10 | N issues found |
| Single Source of Truth | X/10 | N duplications |
| Proactive Compression | X/10 | N compression opportunities |
| Requirements Compliance | X/10 | N violations |
| Actuality | X/10 | N mismatches with code |
| Legacy Cleanup | X/10 | N legacy items |
| Stack Adaptation | X/10 | N stack mismatches |
| Semantic Content | X/10 | N semantic issues (via ln-601) |
| **Overall** | **X/10** | |

### Critical Findings

- [ ] **[Category]** `path/file.md:line` - Issue description. **Action:** Fix suggestion.

### Recommended Actions

| Priority | Action | Location | Category |
|----------|--------|----------|----------|
| High | Remove duplicate section | docs/X.md | SSOT |
| Medium | Add link to CLAUDE.md | docs/Y.md | Hierarchy |

Scoring Algorithm

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_scoring.md for unified scoring formula.

Severity mapping:

Issue TypeSeverity
Outdated content (code mismatch)CRITICAL
Broken links, orphaned docsHIGH
Semantic mismatch (via ln-601)HIGH
Content duplicationMEDIUM
Missing compression opportunityLOW

Reference Files

Definition of Done

  • All.md files in project scanned and hierarchy tree built from CLAUDE.md
  • Categories 1-7 (structural) audited with score X/10 each
  • Category 8 (semantic) delegated to ln-601 for each target document; scores collected
  • Overall Compliance Score calculated (average of 8 categories)
  • Critical Findings listed with file:line, category, and fix suggestion
  • Recommended Actions table generated with priority, action, location, category

Critical Notes

  • Fix content, not rules: NEVER modify standards/rules files (*_standards.md, *_rules.md, *_limits.md) to make violations pass. Always fix the violating files instead.
  • Verify facts against code: Actively check every path, function name, API, config mentioned in docs. Run commands. Outdated docs mislead - they're worse than no docs.
  • Compress always: Size limits are upper bounds, not targets. A 100-line file instead of 300 is a win. Always look for compression opportunities.
  • Meaningless content: Remove filler words, obvious statements, over-explanations. If it doesn't add value, delete it.
  • No code in docs: Documents describe algorithms in tables or ASCII diagrams. Code belongs in codebase.

- Forbidden: Code blocks, implementation snippets - Allowed: Tables, ASCII diagrams, Mermaid, method signatures (1 line) - Instead of code: "See Official docs" or "See src/file.cs:42"

  • Format Priority: Tables/ASCII > Lists (enumerations only) > Text (last resort)
  • Stack adaptation: Verify all documentation references match project stack..NET project must not have Python examples. Check official doc links point to correct platform (Microsoft docs for C#, MDN for JS, etc.)
  • Code is truth: When docs contradict code, always update docs. Never "fix" code to match documentation.
  • SSOT re-verification after fixes: After making ANY documentation change, re-check that the fix maintains Single Source of Truth. If content exists in multiple files, keep it in the canonical source only and replace other occurrences with a link to that source (e.g., See [section](path#anchor)). Never duplicate content inline — always link. Canonical source hierarchy: CLAUDE.md → docs/README.md → docs/project/*.md → docs/reference/*.md.
  • Delete, don't archive: Legacy content should be removed, not moved to "archive"
  • No history: Documents describe current state only; git tracks history

Version: 4.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-28

平台分布

Claude Code

25.74%
按下载量换算105

Gemini CLI

23.25%
按下载量换算95

Codex

17.44%
按下载量换算71

OpenCode

13.09%
按下载量换算53

Antigravity

7.49%
按下载量换算31

windsurf

3.52%
按下载量换算14

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills