### Content Audit
Works with
description: "Audit GDD-specified content counts against implemented content. Identifies what's planned vs built."
argument-hint: "[system-name | --summary | (no arg = full audit)]"
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versioncontent-auditExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches content-audit from Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate content-audit. Access via /content-audit in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
10.7K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
10.7K
stars
| name | content-audit |
| description | "Audit GDD-specified content counts against implemented content. Identifies what's planned vs built." |
| argument-hint | "[system-name | --summary | (no arg = full audit)]" |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep, Write |
| agent | producer |
When this skill is invoked:
Parse the argument:
[system-name] → audit that single system only--summary → summary table only, no file writeRead design/gdd/systems-index.md for the full list of systems, their
categories, and MVP/priority tier.
L0 pre-scan: Before full-reading any GDDs, Grep all GDD files for
## Summary sections plus common content-count keywords:
Grep pattern="(## Summary|N enemies|N levels|N items|N abilities|enemy types|item types)" glob="design/gdd/*.md" output_mode="files_with_matches"
For a single-system audit: skip this step and go straight to full-read. For a full audit: full-read only the GDDs that matched content-count keywords. GDDs with no content-count language (pure mechanics GDDs) are 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. 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.
Levels / Areas / Maps:
assets/**/*.tscn, assets/**/*.unity, assets/**/*.umapsrc/**/*.tscn, src/**/*.unitylevels/, areas/, maps/,
worlds/, stages/Enemies / Characters / NPCs:
assets/data/**/enemies/**, assets/data/**/characters/**src/**/enemies/**, src/**/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 * 100Present 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]
> 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/."Verdict: COMPLETE — content audit finished.
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
JuliusBrussee/caveman
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
vercel-labs/skills
content-audit has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
Useful defaults in content-audit — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
content-audit reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
We added content-audit from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: content-audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
Registry listing for content-audit matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: content-audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
We added content-audit from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
content-audit fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
content-audit is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
showing 1-10 of 68