Menu

Individual skill

document-service

This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze this codebase", "document this service", "generate technical docs", "I inherited this code", "help me understand this system", "create docs for this project", "what does this system look like", "onboard me to this codebase", "this codebase has no docs", "visualize the architecture from code", or any explicit request to produce structured documentation or architecture diagrams from an existing codebase. Specifically optimized for AWS workloads (CDK, CloudFormation, Terraform) with source-of-truth citations. Do NOT activate for code reviews, single-function explanations, generating new code, or general coding tasks.

plugins/codebase-documentor-for-aws/skills/document-service/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit fbefb3764e67558fe10ac834dd85db49734aa9b6

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 4, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
937
Repository last updated
Nov 5, 2026
License
Apache-2.0

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Document Service

Analyze codebases to produce structured technical documentation and architecture diagrams with source-of-truth citations. Every finding links back to the exact file and line it was derived from. Optimized for AWS workloads but works with any codebase.

## Core Principles

- **Explain WHY, not just WHAT.** The reader inherited this codebase and has zero context. Listing components is not enough — explain why the architecture is shaped this way. Search for code comments, TODOs, and commit messages that reveal design rationale. When no rationale exists, mark it `[RATIONALE UNKNOWN]`.
- **Trace end-to-end flows.** For every API endpoint or message handler, trace the complete request path from entry to response. Note every intermediate step, transformation, timeout, and failure point. This is the "if it breaks at 3am, where do I look?" analysis.
- **Deep-dive complex logic.** Identify the most complex or domain-specific code paths (ML pipelines, business rule engines, state machines, custom algorithms). Document HOW they work at the implementation level — the algorithm, key parameters, edge cases, and where production bugs will occur. Surface-level summaries of complex code provide no value over a naive AI prompt.
- **Surface implicit knowledge.** Look for hardcoded values, magic numbers, environment-dependent behavior, and undocumented assumptions. These are the tribal knowledge items that disappear when teams leave.
- **Every claim must be traceable.** Include `file:line` citations for every finding. See [citation-format.md](references/citation-format.md). Verify citations precisely — re-read the cited file and confirm the line number is within ±3 lines. Anchor with function/variable names.
- **Code is the source of truth.** Document what actually exists in code, not what READMEs or wikis claim. Flag every discrepancy between documentation and reality.
- **Mark unknowns and risks explicitly.** Use `[UNKNOWN]` for items not inferable from code, `[RISK]` for unhandled failure modes, `[INFERRED]` for educated guesses, `[RATIONALE UNKNOWN]` for unexplained architecture choices. Omitting markers undermines trust.
- **Verify quantitative claims.** List directory entries programmatically and use exact counts.