Content Audit
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
Time estimate: 15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Prerequisites
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
epx add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill content-auditCompatible with
Supported agents
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
| 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.
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:
epx add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill content-auditFetches 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:
.cursor/skills/content-audit
Restart Cursor to activate content-audit. Access via /content-auditin your agent's command palette.
Learn more:View source on GitHubSkills CLI docsAbout CursorWhat are agent skills?
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.
design-system
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · Game Design · same repo
balance-check
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · Game QA & Testing · same repo
prototype
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · Game Dev Skills · same repo
market-research-synthesizer
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing · Marketing · 2 shared tags
brand-voice-guide
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing · Marketing · 2 shared tags
creator-vetting
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing · Marketing · 2 shared tags
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