Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

Documentation Quality Analysis

@laurigates/claude-plugins
1
0

Analyze and validate documentation quality for PRDs, ADRs, PRPs, CLAUDE.md, and .claude/rules/ to ensure standards compliance and freshness

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name Documentation Quality Analysis
description Analyze and validate documentation quality for PRDs, ADRs, PRPs, CLAUDE.md, and .claude/rules/ to ensure standards compliance and freshness
allowed-tools Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, TodoWrite
created Thu Jan 08 2026 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
modified Thu Jan 08 2026 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
reviewed Thu Jan 08 2026 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

Documentation Quality Analysis

Expert analysis of technical documentation quality, structure, and maintenance for codebases using Blueprint Development methodology and Claude Code conventions.

Core Expertise

Documentation quality is critical for:

  • AI Assistant Context: Well-structured docs enable better AI assistance
  • Knowledge Preservation: Captures architectural decisions and rationale
  • Onboarding: Accelerates new team member productivity
  • Maintenance: Prevents knowledge loss and technical debt

This skill provides systematic analysis of:

  • CLAUDE.md: Project-level AI assistant instructions
  • .claude/rules/: Modular rule definitions
  • ADRs: Architecture Decision Records
  • PRDs: Product Requirements Documents
  • PRPs: Product Requirement Prompts (Blueprint methodology)

Documentation Types & Standards

CLAUDE.md

Purpose: Guide AI assistants on working with the codebase

Required Elements:

---
created: YYYY-MM-DD
modified: YYYY-MM-DD
reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# Project Name

## Project Structure
[Directory layout and organization]

## Rules
[Key rules and conventions]

## Development Workflow
[Common tasks and patterns]

## Conventions
[Naming, structure, etc.]

Quality Indicators:

  • ✅ Clear project structure overview
  • ✅ References to .claude/rules/ files
  • ✅ Tables for quick reference
  • ✅ Focused and concise (not a full manual)
  • ✅ Updated within last 6 months

.claude/rules/

Purpose: Modular, reusable rule definitions

File Structure:

---
created: YYYY-MM-DD
modified: YYYY-MM-DD
reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# Rule Title

[Clear, specific guidance on a single concern]

Quality Indicators:

  • ✅ One concern per rule file
  • ✅ Descriptive file names (kebab-case)
  • ✅ Clear scope and applicability
  • ✅ Actionable guidance with examples
  • ✅ Cross-references to related rules

Common Rules:

  • plugin-structure.md - Plugin organization
  • release-please.md - Version management
  • skill-development.md - Skill creation patterns
  • agentic-optimization.md - CLI optimization for AI
  • command-naming.md - Command conventions

Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)

Purpose: Document significant architectural choices

Format: MADR (Markdown Architecture Decision Records)

Structure:

# ADR-NNNN: Title

**Date**: YYYY-MM
**Status**: Accepted | Superseded | Deprecated
**Deciders**: [who decided]

## Context
[Problem and constraints]

## Decision
[What was decided]

## Consequences
[Positive and negative outcomes]

Location: docs/adrs/ or docs/adr/

Naming: Sequential numbers, kebab-case titles

  • 0001-plugin-based-architecture.md
  • 0002-domain-driven-organization.md

Quality Indicators:

  • ✅ All major architectural decisions documented
  • ✅ Sequential numbering without gaps
  • ✅ Clear context and rationale
  • ✅ Consequences documented (both pros and cons)
  • ✅ Index file maintained
  • ✅ Status accurate (Accepted/Superseded/Deprecated)

Product Requirements Documents (PRDs)

Purpose: Define what needs to be built and why

Location: docs/prds/ or .claude/blueprints/prds/

Structure:

# Project/Feature Name - PRD

**Created**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Status**: Draft | Active | Implemented | Archived
**Version**: X.Y

## Executive Summary
- Problem Statement
- Proposed Solution
- Business Impact

## Stakeholders & Personas
[Who cares and who uses]

## Functional Requirements
[What the system must do]

## Non-Functional Requirements
[Performance, security, accessibility]

## Success Metrics
[How we measure success]

## Scope
- In Scope
- Out of Scope

## Technical Considerations
[Architecture, dependencies, integrations]

Quality Indicators:

  • ✅ Clear problem statement
  • ✅ User personas defined
  • ✅ Specific, measurable requirements
  • ✅ Success metrics defined
  • ✅ Scope explicitly bounded
  • ✅ Status field accurate
  • ✅ Updated when requirements change

Product Requirement Prompts (PRPs)

Purpose: AI-executable feature specifications (Blueprint methodology)

Location: docs/prps/

Structure:

# [Feature Name] PRP

## Goal & Why
[One sentence goal + business justification]

## Success Criteria
[Specific, testable acceptance criteria]

## Context
- **Documentation References**: [URLs with sections]
- **ai_docs References**: [Curated context]
- **Codebase Intelligence**: [Files, patterns, snippets]
- **Known Gotchas**: [Warnings and mitigations]

## Implementation Blueprint
[Architecture decision + task breakdown + pseudocode]

## TDD Requirements
[Test strategy + critical test cases]

## Validation Gates
[Executable commands for quality gates]

## Confidence Score: X/10
- Context Completeness: X/10
- Implementation Clarity: X/10
- Gotchas Documented: X/10
- Validation Coverage: X/10

Quality Indicators:

  • ✅ Explicit file paths and line numbers
  • ✅ Code snippets from actual codebase
  • ✅ Executable validation commands
  • ✅ Honest confidence scoring (≥7 for execution)
  • ✅ Known gotchas with mitigations
  • ✅ Test strategy defined

Quality Analysis Commands

Check for Frontmatter

# Check if file has required frontmatter
grep -A 5 "^---$" CLAUDE.md | grep -E "(created|modified|reviewed):"

# Find files missing frontmatter
for f in docs/adrs/*.md; do
  grep -q "^---$" "$f" || echo "Missing frontmatter: $f"
done

Validate ADR Naming

# Check ADR naming convention (NNNN-title.md)
find docs/adrs -name "*.md" ! -name "README.md" ! -name "[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.md"

# Check for sequential numbering
ls docs/adrs/[0-9]*.md | sort

Check Documentation Freshness

# Find docs not modified in 6 months
find docs -name "*.md" -mtime +180

# Check git history for documentation
git log --since="6 months ago" --oneline -- docs/ .claude/ CLAUDE.md

# Last modification of specific doc
git log -1 --format="%ai %s" -- CLAUDE.md

Validate Sections

# Check if ADR has required sections
grep -E "^## (Context|Decision|Consequences)" docs/adrs/0001-*.md

# Check PRD completeness
grep -E "^## (Executive Summary|Functional Requirements|Success Metrics)" docs/prds/*.md

Count Documentation

# Documentation inventory
echo "CLAUDE.md: $(test -f CLAUDE.md && echo '✅' || echo '❌')"
echo "Rules: $(ls .claude/rules/*.md 2>/dev/null | wc -l) files"
echo "ADRs: $(ls docs/adrs/*.md 2>/dev/null | grep -v README | wc -l) files"
echo "PRDs: $(ls docs/prds/*.md 2>/dev/null | wc -l) files"
echo "PRPs: $(ls docs/prps/*.md 2>/dev/null | wc -l) files"

Quality Scoring Methodology

Overall Quality Score (0-10)

Calculate as average of five dimensions:

Dimension Score 9-10 Score 7-8 Score 5-6 Score 3-4 Score 0-2
Structure Perfect org, all conventions Minor naming issues Some disorganization Poor structure Missing/chaotic
Completeness All sections present 1-2 missing sections Several gaps Major gaps Severely incomplete
Freshness Updated <3mo Updated <6mo Updated <12mo Stale >12mo Abandoned >24mo
Standards Perfect compliance Minor deviations Some non-compliance Poor compliance No standards
Content Quality Excellent clarity Good with minor issues Acceptable Unclear/vague Unusable

Dimension-Specific Scoring

Structure (Organization & Naming):

  • File naming conventions followed
  • Directory structure logical
  • Sequential numbering (ADRs)
  • Proper categorization (.claude/rules/)

Completeness (Required Elements):

  • All required sections present
  • Frontmatter complete
  • Cross-references included
  • Examples provided where needed

Freshness (Currency):

  • modified dates recent
  • Git commits align with modified dates
  • Reflects current codebase state
  • Regular review cadence

Standards Compliance (Format Adherence):

  • Frontmatter present and correct
  • Template structure followed
  • Markdown formatting valid
  • Links and references work

Content Quality (Clarity & Usefulness):

  • Clear, specific language
  • Actionable guidance
  • Relevant examples
  • Appropriate detail level
  • No contradictions or confusion

Common Documentation Issues

Critical Issues (Must Fix)

Issue Detection Fix
Missing CLAUDE.md ! -f CLAUDE.md Create using project template
No frontmatter ! grep "^---$" Add YAML frontmatter with dates
Completely outdated modified >24mo Review and update or archive
Broken structure Missing required sections Follow template structure
Invalid ADR naming Not NNNN-title.md Rename to follow convention

Warnings (Should Fix)

Issue Detection Fix
Stale docs modified >6mo Review and update modified date
Missing sections Template mismatch Add missing sections
No ADR index No README in adrs/ Create index file
Vague requirements Review content Add specificity and examples
Low confidence PRP Score <7 Research more context

Suggestions (Nice to Have)

Issue Detection Fix
Sparse rules <3 rule files Extract common patterns to rules
No PRPs Empty prps/ dir Create PRPs for planned features
Missing examples Grep for code blocks Add code examples
Poor cross-refs Few markdown links Link related documentation
No metrics PRD without success criteria Define measurable metrics

Analysis Workflow

1. Inventory Phase

Collect all documentation:

# List all documentation
find . -name "CLAUDE.md" -o -path "*/.claude/rules/*.md" -o -path "*/docs/adrs/*.md" -o -path "*/docs/prds/*.md" -o -path "*/docs/prps/*.md"

Create inventory:

  • Count files by type
  • Note missing standard docs
  • Check directory structure

2. Validation Phase

For each document type:

  • Read the file
  • Check frontmatter exists and is valid
  • Verify required sections present
  • Validate naming conventions
  • Assess content quality

3. Freshness Phase

Check currency:

# Git last modified
git log -1 --format="%ai" -- path/to/doc.md

# Compare frontmatter vs git
# (modified date should match recent git activity)

Flag stale documents:

  • 6mo: Warning

  • 12mo: Concern

  • 24mo: Critical

4. Scoring Phase

Calculate scores:

  1. Structure: File org, naming (0-10)
  2. Completeness: Sections present (0-10)
  3. Freshness: Currency (0-10)
  4. Standards: Format compliance (0-10)
  5. Content: Quality, clarity (0-10)

Overall = Average of 5 dimensions

5. Reporting Phase

Generate report:

  • Executive summary with overall score
  • Inventory table
  • Dimension scores
  • Critical issues (must fix)
  • Warnings (should fix)
  • Suggestions (nice to have)
  • Actionable recommendations with specific files/fixes

Agentic Optimizations

Task Optimized Approach
List docs find with multiple -name patterns, single command
Check frontmatter grep -l "^---$" *.md batch check
Validate names Shell globbing [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.md
Count files Pipeline `ls
Git history git log --since="6 months ago" --oneline
Batch validation for loop over files, collect issues

Quick Reference

Frontmatter Template

---
created: 2026-01-08
modified: 2026-01-08
reviewed: 2026-01-08
---

ADR Quick Template

# ADR-NNNN: Title

**Date**: 2026-01
**Status**: Accepted

## Context
[Why this decision?]

## Decision
[What did we decide?]

## Consequences
✅ Pros: ...
❌ Cons: ...

Quality Score Guide

  • 9-10: Excellent - Reference quality
  • 7-8: Good - Minor improvements
  • 5-6: Fair - Several issues
  • 3-4: Poor - Major work needed
  • 0-2: Critical - Severe problems

Related Tools

  • /docs:quality-check - Run comprehensive analysis
  • /blueprint:init - Initialize Blueprint Development
  • /blueprint:prd - Generate PRD from project docs
  • /blueprint:adr - Generate ADRs from codebase
  • /blueprint:prp-create - Create PRP for feature

Best Practices

  1. Regular Reviews: Run quality checks monthly
  2. Update Modified Dates: When editing, update frontmatter
  3. Quarterly Reviews: Update reviewed date every 3 months
  4. Template Adherence: Use standard templates consistently
  5. Specificity: Prefer explicit over vague (file paths, metrics)
  6. Cross-Reference: Link related documentation
  7. Examples: Include code snippets and real examples
  8. Scope Management: One concern per document
  9. Git Sync: Commit docs with code changes
  10. AI-Friendly: Write for both humans and AI assistants

Error Handling

# Safe directory checks
test -d docs/adrs && ls docs/adrs || echo "ADRs directory not found"

# Safe file reads with fallback
cat CLAUDE.md 2>/dev/null || echo "CLAUDE.md not found"

# Git-aware freshness (works without git)
git log -1 --format="%ai" -- CLAUDE.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No git history"

# Glob with no-match handling
shopt -s nullglob
for f in docs/adrs/*.md; do
  echo "Processing $f"
done

References

  • MADR (Markdown ADR) - ADR template format
  • Michael Nygard ADR - Original ADR format
  • Blueprint Development methodology - PRP/PRD patterns
  • .claude/rules/ - Project-specific documentation standards