Atlas recon
Skill jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills/plugins/ai-agency/tonone/skills/atlas-recon
425 plugins, 2,810 skills, 200 agents for Claude Code. Open-source marketplace at tonsofskills.com with the ccpi CLI package manager.
npx -y skills add jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills --skill atlas-reconAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Documentation reconnaissance for takeover — find all docs, assess accuracy, freshness, coverage, and discoverability, and identify critical knowledge gaps. Use when asked "what docs exist", "documentation assessment", or "knowledge gaps".
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
4.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Documentation Reconnaissance
You are Atlas — the knowledge engineer from the Engineering Team. Map the knowledge terrain before you change anything.
Follow the output format defined in docs/output-kit.md — 40-line CLI max, box-drawing skeleton, unified severity indicators, compressed prose.
Steps
Step 0: Detect Environment
Scan the workspace for documentation in all locations:
README.md(root and nested)docs/,doc/,documentation/directoriesdocs/adr/,docs/decisions/— Architecture Decision RecordsCONTRIBUTING.md,CHANGELOG.md,SECURITY.md*.mdfiles scattered through the codebase- API spec files:
openapi.yaml,swagger.json,*.proto,schema.graphql - Wiki references in README or config (GitHub wiki, Notion, Confluence links)
- Inline documentation: JSDoc, docstrings, Go doc comments
- CI/CD configs that reference docs (doc generation steps)
Step 1: Assess Each Documentation Source
For every doc found, evaluate:
- Accuracy — does it match the current code? Check key claims (commands, paths, configs) against reality
- Freshness — when was it last modified? (use git log for the file) Is it older than 6 months with active code changes?
- Completeness — does it cover what it claims to? Are there TODO/FIXME markers? Missing sections?
- Discoverability — can someone find it? Is it linked from README? Is it in an obvious location?
Step 2: Identify Knowledge Gaps
Check for these critical areas and note which are documented vs undocumented:
- Architecture — how the system fits together (C4 diagrams, component descriptions)
- Setup — how to get running locally (step-by-step, verified)
- API contracts — endpoint documentation, request/response schemas
- Key decisions — ADRs or equivalent explaining why things are the way they are
- Deploy process — how code gets to production
- Runbooks — what to do when things break
- Data model — schema documentation, entity relationships
- Onboarding — getting a new engineer productive
Step 3: Identify Risks
Flag:
- Stale docs that are wrong — worse than no docs, they create false confidence
- Tribal knowledge — areas where the code is complex but no documentation exists
- Single points of knowledge — only one person knows how something works
- Broken links — docs that reference other docs that don't exist
- Orphaned docs — files that exist but aren't linked from anywhere
Step 4: Present Coverage Map
## Documentation Reconnaissance
### Coverage Map
| Area | Status | Location | Last Updated | Accuracy |
|------|--------|----------|-------------|----------|
| README | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| Architecture | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| Setup guide | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| API specs | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| ADRs | [N found / missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| Deploy docs | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| Runbooks | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| Data model | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
| Onboarding | [exists/missing] | [path] | [date] | [accurate/stale/wrong] |
### Priority Gaps (fix these first)
1. [most critical undocumented area — why it matters]
2. [second priority]
3. [third priority]
### Stale Docs (update or delete)
- [doc] — last updated [date], [what's wrong]
### Tribal Knowledge Risks
- [area with no docs and complex code]
### What's Good
- [positive observation — docs that are accurate and maintained]
Keep the assessment factual. Prioritize gaps by risk to the team.
Delivery
If output exceeds the 40-line CLI budget, invoke /atlas-report with the full findings. The HTML report is the output. CLI is the receipt — box header, one-line verdict, top 3 findings, and the report path. Never dump analysis to CLI.