Skip to content
All Skills

Ln 613 Code Comments Auditor

Checks inline code documentation quality: WHY-not-WHAT, density, forbidden content, docstrings quality, actuality, legacy cleanup. Use when auditing comments and docstrings.

Software Engineering|v1|Updated 7/14/2026|GitHub source
MCP get_skill({ skillId: "inline-code-documentation-auditor-l3-worker-6b2688b1" })

Use this skill with your agent

Create a free account and connect via MCP

Get Started Free
> **Paths:** File paths (`references/`, `../ln-*`) are relative to this skill directory.

# Inline Code Documentation Auditor (L3 Worker)

**Type:** L3 Worker

Specialized worker auditing inline code documentation quality: comments, docstrings, and language-specific documentation blocks.

## Purpose & Scope

- Audit inline code documentation for **quality and compliance** across 6 categories
- Universal for any tech stack (auto-detect comment syntax)
- Return structured findings to coordinator with severity, location, recommendations
- Calculate compliance score (X/10) for Inline Code Documentation category
- Scope is limited to comments/docstrings/JSDoc/XML docs
- Out of scope: code design quality, naming quality, test quality, architecture quality, or feature correctness except where comments contradict code

## Inputs

**MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/audit_worker_core_contract.md` and `references/mcp_tool_preferences.md`.

Receives `contextStore` with: `tech_stack`, `project_root`, `output_dir`.

## Workflow

1) **Parse Context:** Extract tech stack, project root, output_dir from contextStore
2) **Scan:** Find all source files (use `tech_stack` for detection)
   **Hex-line primary path:** Use `outline(file_path)` and discovery-first `read_file()` for code files before analyzing comments. Use `edit_ready=true, verbosity="full"` only if the audit turns into a follow-up edit. Do not use `hex-graph` here - comment quality is a code-reading problem, not a semantic graph problem.
3) **Extract:** Parse inline comments + docstrings/JSDoc
4) **Audit:** Run 6 category checks (see Audit Categories below)
5) **Collect Findings:** Record each violation with severity, location (file:line), effort estimate (S/M/L), recommendation
6) **Calculate Score:** Count violations by severity, calculate compliance score (X/10)
7) **Write Report:** Build full markdown report per `references/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md`, write to `{output_dir}/ln-613--global.md` in single Write call
8) **Return Summary:** Return minimal summary to coordinator (see Output Format)

## 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 unsupported notes |

## Scoring Algorithm

**MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/audit_scoring.md`.

## Output Format

**MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md`.

Write JSON summary per `references/audit_summary_contract.md`. In managed mode the caller passes both `runId` and `summaryArtifactPath`; in standalone mode the worker generates its own run-scoped artifact path per shared contract.

Write report to `{output_dir}/ln-613--global.md` with `category: "Inline Code Documentation"` and checks: why_not_what, density, forbidden_content, docstrings_quality, actuality, legacy_cleanup.

Return summary per `references/audit_summary_contract.md`.

When `summaryArtifactPath` is absent, write the standalone runtime summary under `.hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/evaluation-worker/{worker}--{identifier}.json` and optionally echo the same summary in structured output.
```
Report written: .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/audit-report/ln-613--global.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)
```

**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 |

## Critical Rules

Apply the already-loaded `references/audit_worker_core_contract.md`.

- **Do not auto-fix:** Report violations only; coordinator aggregates for user
- **Fix code, not rules:** NEVER modify rules files (*_rules.md, *_standards.md) to make violations pass
- **Code is truth:** When comment contradicts code, flag the documentation for update; do not turn this into a general code-quality review
- **WHY > WHAT:** Comments explaining obvious behavior should be removed
- **Universal:** Works with any language; detect comment syntax automatically
- **Location precision:** Always include `file:line` for programmatic navigation

## Definition of Done

Apply the already-loaded `references/audit_worker_core_contract.md`.

- [ ] contextStore parsed successfully (including output_dir)
- [ ] All source files scanned (tech stack from contextStore)
- [ ] All 6 categories audited
- [ ] Findings collected with severity, location, effort, recommendation
- [ ] Score calculated using penalty algorithm
- [ ] Report written to `{output_dir}/ln-613--global.md` (atomic single Write call)
- [ ] Summary written per contract

## Reference Files

- Comment rules and patterns: [references/comments_rules.md](references/comments_rules.md)

---
**Version:** 4.0.0
**Last Updated:** 2026-03-01
#agile-workflow#code-review#documentationmcp-hex-line-outlinemcp-hex-line-read-file

Related Skills

More skills in Software Engineering

Accessibility Standards

Comprehensive web accessibility standards based on WCAG 2.2 AA, with 38+ anti-patterns, legal enforcement context (EAA, ADA Title II), WAI-ARIA patterns, and framework-specific fixes for modern web frameworks and libraries.

#github-copilot#accessibilityMIT

Accord

Authoring unified specification packages across Business/Development/Design teams via staged elaboration (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Detail → L3 Acceptance Criteria). No code. Use when authoring cross-team specs, building L0-L3 packages, or aligning Biz/Dev/Design on a single source of truth.

#broad-capability#developmentMIT

Acquire Codebase Knowledge

Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.

#github-copilot#documentationMIT

Acreadiness Assess

Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.

#github-copilot#planningMIT

Acreadiness Generate Instructions

Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.

#github-copilot#skillMIT

Acreadiness Policy

Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.

#github-copilot#planningMIT