Audit GDD content counts against what's implemented — planned vs built.
56
70%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/content-audit/SKILL.md!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys workflow,automation
Automation mode: Resolve modes.automation (project.local.yaml →
project.yaml → default collaborative). Every AskUserQuestion call and
every file write follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md
(collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds;
automation_always_ask categories always prompt).
Resolved above — use as-is. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.
This skill declares tier-dependent behaviour ("audit only specs in the required sections"), which is unreachable unless the tier is actually resolved — without it the skill applies whatever tier it assumed. Resolve
modes.workflowbefore auditing, and when a required input such asdesign/gdd/systems-index.mdis absent, reportNOT ASSESSED — NO DATArather than computing a gap percentage (which divides by zero when nothing is specified).
When this skill is invoked:
Parse the argument:
[system-name] → audit that single system only--summary → summary table only, no file writeworkflow (see .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md):
full — full content-count audit against all GDD specs.standard — audit only specs in the required sections; list any count found
outside them as not audited at this tier.minimal — cannot run (no systems index exists).If the inputs this skill needs do not exist, the answer is "could not run" — not a filled-in report. Check first, and stop if the check fails.
FOUND or ABSENT — not "assumed present".NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA. Do not estimate it, do not infer it from an
adjacent artifact, and do not leave a mandated cell to be filled by whoever
reads the template next.NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA as the whole verdict, naming what was missing and
which skill produces it (/map-systems for design/gdd/systems-index.md, /design-system for the GDDs).A verdict of NOT ASSESSED is a success. It is the correct, useful answer to
"what does the data say?" when there is no data. The failure mode this prevents is
specific and has been observed in practice: report templates whose verdict
enum had no "could not run" state produced false clean passes — an asset audit
returning COMPLIANT on a project with no assets and no standards, and a
performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against a 16.67ms budget" with zero
profiler data and no budget ever set.
Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. A scan that finds no matches because there are no files to scan has not verified anything. Say which of the two happened — a reader cannot tell from a green result.
Read design/gdd/systems-index.md for the full list of systems, their
categories, and MVP/priority tier.
Registry-first count: If design/registry/entities.yaml exists, read it
first. Its entities and items sections are the cross-GDD named content
the audit is counting, already distilled with a source: GDD per entry:
Grep pattern="^ - name:" path="design/registry/entities.yaml" output_mode="content" -A 2- name: appears in all four registry sections; keep only the names whose
-A 2 context shows they sit under entities: or items: (the named
content this audit counts — not formulas:/constants:). Use those as the
planned named-content set without full-reading the GDDs that own them.
If design/registry/entities.yaml does not exist or has no entries (it
ships as an empty stub until /design-system populates it), skip this step
and rely on the GDD scan below — behaviour is unchanged, only more expensive.
L0 pre-scan: Before full-reading any GDDs, run two greps — they answer different questions and must not share a pattern:
a. Which GDDs carry a Summary (the denominator / fail-open check):
Grep pattern="^## Summary" glob="design/gdd/*.md" output_mode="files_with_matches"b. Which GDDs actually declare content counts (the narrowing step):
Grep pattern="[0-9]+[[:space:]]+(enemies|enemy types|levels|areas|maps|stages|items|weapons|equipment|abilities|skills|spells|cutscenes|conversations|dialogue scenes|bosses|quests)|(enemy|item|weapon|ability|level) types:" glob="design/gdd/*.md" output_mode="files_with_matches"Keep the two scans separate.
## Summarymatches every compliant GDD, so a union with it narrows nothing, and a literal placeholder such asN enemiesmatches no real GDD. Pattern (b) matches digits followed by the content nouns step 5 actually extracts.
Fail open on a missing Summary. Establish the denominator: glob
design/gdd/*.md and count N. Scan (a) matching fewer than N means
those GDDs predate ## Summary — never treat an absent Summary as a system
out of scope; a zero-match (a) means "no GDD carries a Summary yet", not "no
auditable content". Full-read the unmatched in-scope GDDs.
For a single-system audit: skip this step and go straight to full-read.
For a full audit: full-read the GDDs that scan (b) matched
and are not already fully covered by the registry entries from step 2,
plus every GDD scan (a) missed — the fail-open rule wins over this
narrowing: a GDD with no ## Summary is full-read even when scan (b) did
not match it. Only a GDD that has a Summary and no content-count language (a
pure mechanics GDD) is noted as "No auditable content counts" without a full
read.
Full-read in-scope GDD files (or the single system GDD if a system name was given).
For each GDD, extract explicit content counts or lists, noting the ## section each sits under — at standard, a count outside the required sections (.claude/docs/workflow-modes.md) goes on the "Not audited at this tier" list, never into the inventory. Look for patterns
like:
Build a content inventory table from the extracted data:
| System | Content Type | Specified Count/List | Source GDD |
|---|
Note: If a GDD describes content qualitatively but gives no count, record "Unspecified" and flag it — unspecified counts are a design gap worth noting.
For each content type found in Phase 1, scan the relevant directories to count what has been implemented. Use Glob and Grep to locate files.
On Unreal, content lives in Content/ — maps and data assets both — and the
code root (Source/<Module>/) holds only C++. So on Unreal, every assets/… glob
below also runs under Content/ (*.uasset in place of the data extensions),
and levels are Content/**/*.umap. Skipping this finds zero levels on every
Unreal project and reports them NOT STARTED.
On Unity, content lives under Assets/ (compare the case exactly —
.claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md), and rarely in a data/ folder. So on
Unity every assets/… glob below also runs under Assets/, without requiring
a data/ segment — for items, Assets/**/items/**, Assets/**/Items/** and
Assets/**/*Item*.asset — and data files include .asset (ScriptableObjects)
and .prefab. Skipping this finds zero items, abilities, quests and dialogue
on a Unity project and reports them NOT STARTED.
Levels / Areas / Maps:
assets/**/*.tscn, assets/**/*.unity, assets/**/*.umap*.tscn (Godot), *.unity (Unity); on Unreal, Content/**/*.umap instead (above). Resolve the root per .claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md. If the code root is unresolved, report NOT ASSESSED — code root unresolved rather than zero hits.levels/, areas/, maps/,
worlds/, stages/Enemies / Characters / NPCs:
assets/data/**/enemies/**, assets/data/**/characters/**<code root>/**/enemies/**, <code root>/**/characters/**.json, .tres, .asset, .yaml data files defining entity statsItems / Equipment / Loot:
assets/data/**/items/**, assets/data/**/equipment/**,
assets/data/**/loot/**.json, .tres, .asset data filesAbilities / Skills / Spells:
assets/data/**/abilities/**, assets/data/**/skills/**,
assets/data/**/spells/**.json, .tres, .asset data filesDialogue / Conversations / Cutscenes:
assets/**/*.dialogue, assets/**/*.csv, assets/**/*.inkassets/data/Quests / Missions:
assets/data/**/quests/**, assets/data/**/missions/**.json, .yaml definition filesEngine-specific notes (acknowledge in the report):
Produce the gap table:
| System | Content Type | Specified | Found | Gap | Status |
|--------|-------------|-----------|-------|-----|--------|Status categories:
COMPLETE — Found ≥ Specified (100%+)IN PROGRESS — Found is 50–99% of SpecifiedEARLY — Found is 1–49% of SpecifiedNOT STARTED — Found is 0Priority flags:
Flag a system as HIGH PRIORITY in the report if:
NOT STARTED or EARLY, ANDSummary line:
(Specified - Found) / Specified * 100A row whose Found is NOT ASSESSED (code root unresolved) has no Gap or
Status, is never NOT STARTED, and stays out of both totals; the summary names it.
Present the gap table and summary to the user. Ask: "May I write the full report to docs/content-audit-[YYYY-MM-DD].md?"
If yes, write the file:
# Content Audit — [Date]
## Summary
- **Total specified**: [N] content items across [M] systems
- **Total found**: [N]
- **Gap**: [N] items ([X%] unimplemented)
- **Scope**: [Full audit | System: name] — [all GDD sections | required sections only (workflow: standard)]
- **Not audited at this tier**: [counts found only outside the required sections — or "none"; omit at `full`]
> Note: Counts are approximations based on file scanning.
> The audit cannot distinguish shipped content from editor/test assets.
> Manual verification is recommended for any HIGH PRIORITY gaps.
## Gap Table
| System | Content Type | Specified | Found | Gap | Status |
|--------|-------------|-----------|-------|-----|--------|
## HIGH PRIORITY Gaps
[List systems flagged HIGH PRIORITY with rationale]
## Per-System Breakdown
### [System Name]
- **GDD**: `design/gdd/[file].md`
- **Content types audited**: [list]
- **Notes**: [any caveats about scan accuracy for this system]
## Recommendation
Focus implementation effort on:
1. [Highest-gap HIGH PRIORITY system]
2. [Second system]
3. [Third system]
## Unspecified Content Counts
The following GDDs describe content without giving explicit counts.
Consider adding counts to improve auditability:
[List of GDDs and content types with "Unspecified"]After writing the report, ask:
"Would you like to create backlog stories for any of the content gaps?"
If yes: for each system the user selects, suggest a story title and point them
to /create-stories [epic-slug] or /quick-design depending on the size of the gap.
Print the Gap Table and Summary directly to conversation. Do not write a file.
End with: "Run /content-audit without --summary to write the full report."
After the audit, recommend the highest-value follow-up actions:
NOT STARTED and MVP-tagged → "Run /design-system [name] to
add missing content counts to the GDD before implementation begins."/sprint-plan to allocate content work across upcoming sprints."/create-stories [epic-slug] for each HIGH PRIORITY gap."--summary was used → "Run /content-audit (no flag) to write the full report to docs/."Close with the verdict that matches the run:
NOT ASSESSED — code root unresolved); name which, and for missing counts
name /design-system. Never print COMPLETE for a run that could not compute a gap.b21fa0f
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.