Source Command Audit Whitepapers

source-command-audit-whitepapers

Use this skill when the user asks to run the migrated source command audit-whitepapers.

Command Template

Audit Whitepapers & Recap Cards

Comprehensive freshness and quality audit for all whitepapers (FR + EN) and recap cards (FR + EN). Scores each document against the current guide version, checks FR/EN parity, and validates metadata consistency.

Arguments

• --fix - Generate update suggestions and frontmatter patches (does not modify files)
• --verbose - Show all criteria including passing ones, not just failures
• --cards-only - Audit only recap cards (skip main whitepapers)
• --wp-only - Audit only main whitepapers (skip recap cards)

Usage

/audit-whitepapers                  # Full audit, failures only
/audit-whitepapers --fix            # Audit + prioritized update suggestions
/audit-whitepapers --verbose        # Full details for all criteria
/audit-whitepapers --cards-only     # Recap cards only
/audit-whitepapers --wp-only        # Whitepapers only

Phase 1: Discovery

Objective: Locate and inventory all auditable documents.

Steps

1. Read current guide version: Read the VERSION file at the project root. This is the target version all documents should be synced against.

2. Scan directories for .qmd files:

   whitepapers/fr/         (main whitepapers FR)
   whitepapers/en/         (main whitepapers EN)
   whitepapers/recap-cards/fr/    (recap cards FR)
   whitepapers/recap-cards/en/    (recap cards EN)
   

3. Classify each file:

   • Main whitepaper: files matching [0-9][0-9]-*.qmd in whitepapers/fr/ or whitepapers/en/
   • Cheatsheet: files matching *cheatsheet*.qmd (tracked separately, not scored)
   • Custom whitepaper: files matching *-whitepaper.qmd or *-cheatsheet.qmd from external partners (strangebee, purchasely, devwithai) -- excluded from scoring, listed separately
   • Recap card: all .qmd files in recap-cards/fr/ or recap-cards/en/
   • Bundle/include: fiches-recap-serie.qmd, files in fiches/ subdirectory -- excluded (they are composed documents)

4. Parse YAML frontmatter for each included file (read between first --- and second ---). Extract:

   • title, subtitle, author, date
   • version (guide version tracked in main WPs and recap cards)
   • wp-version (whitepaper own semver, main WPs only)
   • guide-version (explicit guide version field used in recap cards)
   • card-number, category, difficulty (recap cards only)
   • series (main WPs only)

5. Display discovery summary:

   Guide version: {VERSION}
   Found: {N} main whitepapers ({FR}/{EN} FR/EN), {N} recap cards ({FR}/{EN} FR/EN)
   Excluded: {N} custom files (strangebee, purchasely, devwithai), {N} bundle files
   

Phase 2: Version Gap Analysis (40 points per file)

Objective: Score how current each document is relative to the guide.

Semver comparison logic

Parse version strings as MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH. The staleness metric is minor_gap = current_minor - file_minor (using the same MAJOR). If MAJOR differs, treat as critical.

For main whitepapers, the guide version field is version. For recap cards, the guide version field is guide-version (fall back to version if absent).

Scoring table

Freshness labels:

• 0-1 minor behind: Fresh
• 2-3 minor behind: Stale
• 4-10 minor behind: Very Stale
• 11+ minor behind: Critical

Note: The 15, 10, 5 pts for guide version are mutually exclusive (award only the highest applicable tier).

Phase 3: Content Staleness Check (20 points per file)

Objective: Detect whether the guide sections a whitepaper covers have changed since it was last updated.

Whitepaper-to-guide mapping (embedded)

Steps

1. For each main whitepaper, extract the date field. If the date is not in YYYY-MM-DD format, parse it (e.g., "2026-02-12" or "March 2026").
2. Run git log --since="{date}" --oneline -- guide/ultimate-guide.md guide/roles/ guide/core/ to count commits that touched guide content since the whitepaper's date.
3. Score:

Recap cards: Skip detailed git analysis. Award a flat staleness score based on minor_gap:

• 0-1 behind: 20 pts
• 2-3 behind: 15 pts
• 4-10 behind: 8 pts
• 11+ behind: 0 pts

Phase 4: FR/EN Parity Check (20 points per file)

Objective: Every document should have a complete, version-consistent counterpart in the other language.

Pairing strategy

Main whitepapers: Match on the two-digit numeric prefix (e.g., 00, 03, 10). FR and EN filenames differ but the prefix is consistent.

Recap cards: Match on identical filename (both language directories use the same filenames).

Scoring table

Score both the FR and EN files of a pair identically on parity (if the pair is complete, both get 20; if one is missing, the existing file scores 0 on parity).

Phase 5: Metadata Quality (20 points per file)

Objective: Validate frontmatter completeness, field formats, and consistency across files of the same type.

Main whitepapers (20 points max)

Recap cards (20 points max)

Known issue to detect automatically: EN C-series cards use two different category values ("Conceptual" on c01-c05, "Design" on c06+). Flag this inconsistency explicitly in the Metadata Issues section of the report.

Phase 6: Scoring and Grading

Score formula (per file)

Total = Version Gap (40) + Content Staleness (20) + FR/EN Parity (20) + Metadata Quality (20)
Score = (Total / 100) * 100  [as a percentage]

Grade scale

Overall health score

Weighted Health = (Sum of WP scores * 2 + Sum of card scores * 1) / (WP count * 2 + card count * 1)

Whitepapers are weighted 2x because they are 20-80 pages each vs. 2-page recap cards. A stale whitepaper carries more risk.

Phase 7: Report

Output the following Markdown report. Use <details> blocks for individual file breakdowns to keep the top level scannable.

# Whitepaper & Recap Card Audit

**Date**: {today}
**Guide Version**: {VERSION}
**Overall Health**: {score}% ({grade})
**Files Audited**: {total} ({wp_count} whitepapers, {card_count} recap cards)

---

## Version Status Dashboard

| Status | Whitepapers | Recap Cards | Total |
|--------|-------------|-------------|-------|
| Fresh (0-1 minor behind)   | N | N | N |
| Stale (2-3 minor behind)   | N | N | N |
| Very Stale (4-10 behind)   | N | N | N |
| Critical (11+ behind)      | N | N | N |

**Versions currently in use**:
- Main WP 00-09: {version} ({gap} minor versions behind)
- Main WP 10: {version} ({gap} minor versions behind)
- Recap cards: {guide-version} ({gap} minor versions behind)

---

## Whitepaper Scores

| WP# | Title | version | Gap | wp-version | Parity | Score | Grade |
|-----|-------|---------|-----|------------|--------|-------|-------|
| 00  | ...   | ...     | -N  | ...        | OK/gap | N%    | X     |
...

<details>
<summary>Individual criteria breakdown (WP 00)</summary>

| Phase | Criterion | Result | Points |
|-------|-----------|--------|--------|
| Version Gap | Guide version current | Critical (-11) | 0/15 |
| Version Gap | wp-version valid semver | OK | 5/5 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| **Total** | | | **N/100** |
</details>

---

## Recap Card Scores

| Series | Cards | Avg guide-version | Avg Gap | Avg Score | Grade |
|--------|-------|-------------------|---------|-----------|-------|
| T (Technical)    | 22 | ... | -N | N% | X |
| M (Methodology)  | 22 | ... | -N | N% | X |
| C (Conceptual)   | 13 | ... | -N | N% | X |

<details>
<summary>Individual card scores</summary>

| Card | Category | guide-version | Gap | Parity | Metadata | Score | Grade |
|------|----------|---------------|-----|--------|----------|-------|-------|
...
</details>

---

## FR/EN Parity Report

### Whitepapers
| WP# | FR | EN | wp-version Match | version Match |
|-----|----|----|------------------|---------------|
...

### Recap Cards
- **FR count**: {N} | **EN count**: {N}
- **Missing FR**: [list or "None"]
- **Missing EN**: [list or "None"]
- **Version mismatches**: [list or "None"]

---

## Metadata Issues

### Known: EN Recap Card Category Inconsistency
EN C-series cards use two different values for the "Conceptual/Design" category:
- "Conceptual": c01, c02, c03, c04, c05
- "Design": c06, c07, c08, ...
Recommendation: standardize to "Design" to match guide terminology.
Affected files: whitepapers/recap-cards/en/c01-*.qmd through c05-*.qmd (change "Conceptual" to "Design")

### Other issues
[List any missing fields, bad formats, date issues...]

---

## Prioritized Action Items

### Critical (Grade F, 11+ versions behind)
[List specific whitepapers with filename paths]

### High (Grade D-F, 2+ versions behind)
[List specific files]

### Medium (Metadata quality, category fixes)
[List specific issues]

### Low (Polish, date alignment)
[List specific issues]

---

## Next Steps

1. Run `/update-whitepapers --since {oldest_version}` to update all stale WPs
2. Fix EN category inconsistency (5 files: c01 through c05, change "Conceptual" to "Design")
3. Re-run `/audit-whitepapers` after updates to track progress
4. Target: 80%+ health (Grade B) across all files

Fix Mode (--fix)

When --fix is passed, append a Fix Suggestions section after the report. This section provides concrete patches but does NOT modify any files.

Frontmatter version patches

For each file with a stale guide version, output:

# File: whitepapers/fr/00-introduction-serie.qmd
# Change:
version: "3.27.6"  ->  version: "{current_VERSION}"
date: 2026-02-12   ->  date: {today}

Category fix patches (EN recap cards)

Files to update (category: "Conceptual" -> "Design"):
- whitepapers/recap-cards/en/c01-trust-calibration.qmd
- whitepapers/recap-cards/en/c02-*.qmd
- whitepapers/recap-cards/en/c03-*.qmd
- whitepapers/recap-cards/en/c04-*.qmd
- whitepapers/recap-cards/en/c05-*.qmd

Update command checklist

Based on the stale WPs detected, output the /update-whitepapers commands to run in order:

Suggested update sequence:
1. /update-whitepapers --since {oldest_stale_version} --wp 00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09
2. /update-whitepapers --since {oldest_stale_version} --wp 10
3. Review and bump wp-version for each updated WP (patch = content corrections, minor = new sections)
4. Bump guide-version in all recap cards to {current_VERSION}
5. Re-run /audit-whitepapers to verify

Verbose Mode (--verbose)

When --verbose is passed, expand all <details> blocks by default and show the complete per-file criteria table (all criteria, not just failures) for every audited file.

Exclusions Reference

The following files are excluded from scoring (listed in discovery summary only):