--- name: documentation-diataxis description: "Analyzes documentation against Diataxis framework (Tutorial, How-to, Reference, Explanation). Use when reviewing documentation structure or classifying content type. Identifies misalignments between declared category and actual content." --- # Diataxis Classification Review ## Scope Diataxis classification only: identify whether each page is a tutorial, how-to guide, explanation, or reference; note structural mismatches between content type and declared category, and suggest improvements where real issues exist. Ground classification in the Diataxis foundations: the two axes of craft (action vs cognition, acquisition vs application) define four user needs (learning, goals, information, understanding). This skill identifies flaws and provides actionable recommendations; it does not enforce compliance or apply pass/fail criteria. ## Inputs - Documentation file(s) under review. - Diataxis framework principles (embedded in classification criteria below). ## Actions 1. **Identify intended category**: Determine the declared category based on directory location (`tutorial/`, `how-to/`, `explanation/`, `reference/`) and file metadata (front matter keys such as `category`, `type`, `diataxis`, or reST `.. meta::` entries). 2. **Infer actual category**: Analyse the text's structure, tone, and progression to determine which quadrant it actually resembles. Use these classification criteria: - **Tutorial indicators**: - Step-by-step progression building a complete project - Imperative mood ("Create a file", "Run this command") - Learning-focused language ("you will learn", "by the end") - Safe, controlled environment (specific versions, no branching) - Frequent reassurance and checkpoints - Teaches by doing, not explaining - **How-to guide indicators**: - Problem-solution format with clear goal - Assumes existing knowledge and competence - Clearly states prerequisites and applicability scope - Action-oriented ("To achieve X, do Y") - Flexible, allows for variation - Focuses on results, not learning - Omits explanations unless critical to success - **Reference indicators**: - Descriptive, declarative statements - Comprehensive coverage of subject - Neutral, technical tone - Structured for lookup (tables, lists, alphabetical) - Parameters, options, API signatures - Accuracy over narrative - **Explanation indicators**: - Conceptual focus ("why" and "how it works") - Discursive, exploratory tone - Comparative analysis - Context, background, relationships - Illuminates understanding, not action - May include history, design decisions, alternatives - May contain subjective opinions and personal perspectives 3. **Check user need alignment**: Map the page to the user need implied by the action/cognition and acquisition/application axes (learning, goals, information, understanding). - **Tutorials**: Is it a learning-oriented lesson? Does it build confidence through doing? Is it linear and safe? - **How-to guides**: Is it a task-oriented recipe? Does it help a competent user solve a specific problem? Is it goal-focused? - **Reference**: Is it information-oriented? Does it describe things accurately and completely? Is it structured for lookup? - **Explanation**: Is it understanding-oriented? Does it clarify concepts, context, and relationships? Is it discursive? 4. **Note hard-to-fit genres**: Some documentation types do not align cleanly with a single quadrant (for example, release notes or contributing guides). Flag these cases explicitly, reference the Diataxis guidance on complex hierarchies (https://diataxis.fr/complex-hierarchies/), and choose the closest fit category for reporting. 5. **Evaluate quality**: - **Functional quality**: Is the content accurate, complete, consistent, useful, and precise? - Missing prerequisites or dependencies - Incomplete steps or procedures - Inconsistent terminology or naming - Outdated information (version mismatches, deprecated features) - **Deep quality**: Does the content have good flow? Does it anticipate user questions? Is the cognitive load appropriate? Is the experience clear? - Paragraph length (>4 sentences may suggest need for breaking) - Sentence complexity (nested clauses, dense jargon) - Transition quality (abrupt topic changes, missing connectives) - Progressive disclosure (introducing too much too soon) - User journey mapping (gaps in expected flow) 6. **Document misalignments**: Explicitly identify where the document fails to meet the needs of its category, jumps between categories, or where quality breaks down. For each issue, provide: - Specific location (section, paragraph) - Nature of the problem - Impact on user experience - Concrete suggestion for improvement 7. **Verify completion**: Confirm the analysis completed: - Category classification completed (declared vs inferred) - User need alignment analyzed - Quality assessment performed (functional and deep quality) - Misalignments documented with recommendations State the completion status: - `✓ Diataxis analysis complete: [declared category] → [inferred category], [N] issues found` - OR `✓ Diataxis analysis complete: Content aligns well with [category]` ## Constraints - Do not ignore the Diataxis framework. - Assign each page to exactly one quadrant. - Do not introduce categories beyond the four quadrants. ## Output A Diataxis Analysis Report detailing: - Declared category (from metadata/directory structure). - Inferred category (from content analysis). - User need alignment analysis (which quadrant best serves the user). - Functional quality findings (with specific examples). - Deep quality findings (with specific examples). - Identified issues and actionable recommendations for improvement. If no significant issues are found, state that the documentation aligns well with its intended category.