boisenoise 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.
Code Comments Auditor
Audit code comments and docstrings quality. Universal for any tech stack.
Purpose
- Verify comments explain WHY, not obvious WHAT
- Check comment density (15-20% ratio)
- Detect forbidden content (dates, author names, historical notes)
- Validate docstrings match function signatures
- Ensure comments match current code state
- Identify legacy comments and commented-out code
Invocation
- Direct: User invokes for code comment quality review
- Pipeline: Called by ln-100-documents-pipeline (Phase 5, if auditComments=true)
Workflow
- Scan: Find all source files (auto-detect tech stack)
- Extract: Parse inline comments + docstrings/JSDoc
- Audit: Run 6 category checks (see Audit Categories below)
- Score: Calculate X/10 per category
- Report: Output findings and recommended actions
Audit Categories
| # | Category | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | WHY not WHAT | Comments explain rationale, not obvious code behavior; no restating code |
| 2 | Density (15-20%) | Comment-to-code ratio within range; not over/under-commented |
| 3 | No Forbidden Content | No dates/authors; no historical notes; no code examples in comments |
| 4 | Docstrings Quality | Match function signatures; parameters documented; return types accurate |
| 5 | Actuality | Comments match code behavior; no stale references; examples runnable |
| 6 | Legacy Cleanup | No TODO without context; no commented-out code; no deprecated notes |
Output Format
## Code Comments Audit Report - [DATE]
### Compliance Score
| Category | Score | Issues |
|----------|-------|--------|
| WHY not WHAT | X/10 | N obvious comments |
| Density (15-20%) | X/10 | X% actual (target: 15-20%) |
| No Forbidden Content | X/10 | N forbidden items |
| Docstrings Quality | X/10 | N mismatches |
| Actuality | X/10 | N stale comments |
| Legacy Cleanup | X/10 | N legacy items |
| **Overall** | **X/10** | |
### Critical Findings
- [ ] **[Category]** `path/file:line` - Issue description. **Action:** Fix suggestion.
### Recommended Actions
| Priority | Action | Location | Category |
|----------|--------|----------|----------|
| High | Remove author name | src/X:45 | Forbidden |
| Medium | Update stale docstring | lib/Y:120 | Actuality |
Scoring Algorithm
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_scoring.md for unified scoring formula.
Severity mapping:
| Issue Type | Severity |
|---|---|
| Author names, dates in comments | CRITICAL |
| Commented-out code blocks | HIGH |
| Stale/outdated comments | HIGH |
| Obvious WHAT comments | MEDIUM |
| Density deviation >5% | MEDIUM |
| Minor density deviation | LOW |
Reference Files
- Comment rules and patterns: references/comments_rules.md
Definition of Done
- All source files scanned (tech stack auto-detected)
- Inline comments and docstrings/JSDoc extracted and parsed
- All 6 categories audited with score X/10 each (WHY-not-WHAT, Density, Forbidden, Docstrings, Actuality, Legacy)
- Comment-to-code density ratio calculated and compared against 15-20% target
- Critical Findings listed with file:line, category, and fix suggestion
- Recommended Actions table generated with priority, action, location, category
Critical Notes
- Fix code, not rules: NEVER modify rules files (*_rules.md, *_standards.md) to make violations pass. Always fix the code instead.
- Code is truth: When comment contradicts code, flag comment for update
- WHY > WHAT: Comments explaining obvious behavior should be removed
- Task IDs OK: Task/Story IDs in comments help with code traceability
- Universal: Works with any language; detect comment syntax automatically
- Based on: Claude Code comment-analyzer agent patterns
Version: 3.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-23