Results for “documentation-audit”

Align a technical document with the actual code implementation and correct drift. Use when a user asks to update docs to match current behavior, audit a technical document against the repository, or fix stale architecture, API, workflow, or operator documentation.

Guides through a 5-step secure development workflow for smart contracts, including automated scanning with Slither, special feature validation, visual security diagrams, security property documentation, and manual review.

Systematic API design methodology with 6 validated patterns covering parameter categorization, safe refactoring, audit-first approach, automated validation, quality gates, and example-driven documentation. Use when designing new APIs, improving API consistency, implementing breaking change policies, or building API quality enforcement. Provides deterministic decision trees (5-tier parameter system), validation tool architecture, pre-commit hook patterns. Validated with 82.5% cross-domain transferability, 37.5% efficiency gains through audit-first refactoring.

Analyzes web performance using Chrome DevTools MCP. Measures Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) and supplementary metrics (FCP, TBT, Speed Index), identifies render-blocking resources, network dependency chains, layout shifts, caching issues, and accessibility gaps. Use when asked to audit, profile, debug, or optimize page load performance, Lighthouse scores, or site speed. Biases towards retrieval from current documentation over pre-trained knowledge.

Analyzes web performance using Chrome DevTools MCP. Measures Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) and supplementary metrics (FCP, TBT, Speed Index), identifies render-blocking resources, network dependency chains, layout shifts, caching issues, and accessibility gaps. Use when asked to audit, profile, debug, or optimize page load performance, Lighthouse scores, or site speed. Biases towards retrieval from current documentation over pre-trained knowledge.

Apply lean thinking to UX: hypothesis-driven design, collaborative sketching, and rapid experiments instead of heavy deliverables. Use when the user mentions "Lean UX", "design hypothesis", "UX experiment", "collaborative design", "outcome over output", "design studio method", "assumption mapping", or "lightweight research". Also trigger when reducing design documentation overhead, getting cross-functional teams to co-design, or running fast usability experiments. Covers hypothesis statements, MVPs for UX, and cross-functional collaboration. For Build-Measure-Learn, see lean-startup. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics.

Applies Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard to a target you already have — a file on disk, text pasted into the prompt, or a draft already produced in the conversation — by dispatching the readability-editor to rewrite its prose so the main point comes first, headings are descriptive, each paragraph carries one idea, and sentences stay short and active, while preserving every fact. Use when you want to make a document or draft readable, edit or polish prose for readability, clean up writing, tighten wording, or re-apply the readability standard to something already written. Rewrites prose only, leaving code, diagrams, and citation identifiers unchanged. Does not write new feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not restructure code or review it — use refactor to restructure code and code-review to audit it. Does not judge the underlying work or raise findings; it only rewrites the writing.

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.