Docs Marketer

A documentation marketability audit system that evaluates whether accurate documentation is effectively marketed. While /doc-audit answers "are the docs correct?", this skill answers "are the docs compelling?"

Surfaces under-promoted features, evaluates first impressions, identifies onboarding friction, and scores competitive differentiation across all documentation surfaces (README, Docker Hub, Wiki, MCP Registry, npm).

When to Load

Load this skill when any of these apply:

• Improving documentation to better market a project's capabilities
• Preparing documentation for a product launch or major release
• Auditing whether powerful features are adequately surfaced in docs
• Evaluating README first impressions and competitive positioning
• Reviewing documentation tone, voice, and consistency across surfaces
• The user asks to "improve my README", "market my docs", "what features am I under-marketing", "make my docs more compelling", "README review", "audit my docs for marketing", or "improve discoverability"

Do NOT load for:

• Structural compliance checks (use /doc-audit instead)
• Source-of-truth parity against source code (use /doc-audit instead)
• Code quality audits (use adversarial-performance or autonomous-dev)

Target Resolution

Before starting, resolve which repository to audit. If the user did not specify a repository:

1. Check workspace context — look at the active workspace roots and any PROJECT_REGISTRY configuration. If there is exactly one candidate repository, use it.
2. Infer from conversation — if the user recently discussed a specific project or the briefing identifies an active repository, prefer that.
3. Ask the user — if the target is still ambiguous (e.g., multiple registered workspaces, no clear context), ask which repository to audit before proceeding. Do not guess.

Once resolved, confirm the target repository and its absolute path in your first output so the user can verify before the audit begins.

Audit Modes

Standard Mode (Default)

Single-pass structured audit. Agent A (The Marketer) inventories all documentation surfaces, scores each against 10 categories, and produces a prioritized improvement plan. Fast and practical — best for routine docs reviews.

Adversarial Mode (AUDIT_DEPTH: adversarial)

Full dual-agent pipeline. After Agent A's baseline profile, Agent B (The Skeptical Reader) simulates a developer discovering the project for the first time — evaluating the 30-second impression, identifying friction, and challenging marketing claims. Produces deeper insights at the cost of more time and tokens.

Audit Categories

The 10 marketability categories evaluated per document surface:

#	Category	Focus
1	Feature Visibility	Are all capabilities discoverable in docs?
2	First Impression	Does the repo sell itself in the first 30 seconds?
3	Information Architecture	Heading hierarchy, scannability, progressive disclosure
4	Visual Assets	Mermaid diagrams, badges, screenshots, callouts
5	Competitive Differentiation	Does the value proposition clearly stand out?
6	Onboarding Friction	Quick Start clarity, copy-paste readiness
7	Platform Presence	Docker Hub, npm, MCP Registry, GitHub description/topics
8	Cross-Document Consistency	Feature counts, naming, version alignment across surfaces
9	Tone & Voice	Confident, consistent, audience-appropriate
10	SEO & Discoverability	Keywords, GitHub topics, heading keyword density

For the full rubric with scoring guides, checklists, and anti-patterns, read references/audit-categories.md.

Adversarial Protocol

This skill follows the standard dual-agent adversarial pattern (Agent A: The Marketer, Agent B: The Skeptical Reader) when AUDIT_DEPTH is set to adversarial.

For the core pipeline rules, phase definitions, and agent switching protocols, read: ../adversarial-security/references/adversarial-base-protocol.md

For the docs-marketer-specific protocol with scoring, templates, and the Skeptical Reader review dimensions, read: references/multi-pass-docs-protocol.md

External Validation (Phase 4)

Phase 4 triggers an independent validation pass using the GitHub CLI (gh copilot). The copilot subcommand is built into modern gh CLI — no separate extension is needed. This provides a fundamentally different model's perspective on documentation quality, catching marketing blind spots that internal review normalizes.

For prompts, read references/copilot-docs-prompts.md.

Prerequisites: gh CLI v2.x+ with gh auth status passing. If gh copilot is not available, skip Phase 4 gracefully and note the skip in the journal entry.

Read references/copilot-usage.md for critical non-interactive execution requirements.

Feedback Loop

Every phase creates a journal entry for future retrieval. For templates and tag conventions, read references/feedback-loop.md.

Prompt Improvement

If during any phase you notice an opportunity to improve the audit — a category checklist that missed an important signal, a Copilot prompt that produced weak results, or a scoring rubric that didn't capture real quality differences — note it as a ### Prompt Improvement Opportunity in your journal entry for that phase. Include:

• What happened: The specific gap or weak result
• Suggested fix: Concrete wording change, new checklist item, or revised prompt
• Category affected: Which of the 10 categories or Copilot prompts

These observations accumulate in the journal and inform future skill refinement cycles via skill-builder.

Configuration

Variable	Default	Description
AUDIT_DEPTH	standard	Depth: standard (single-pass) or adversarial (dual-agent)
MAX_AUDIT_PASSES	2	Maximum adversarial cycles (phases 2–3 repeat). Ignored in standard mode.
COPILOT_VALIDATION	true	Enable/disable Copilot extension validation phase
TARGET_DOCS	auto	Auto-detect surfaces or explicit list (e.g., README.md,DOCKER_README.md)

Audit Depth Profiles

• Standard: All 10 categories scored per surface. Agent A only. Best for routine checks and quick improvement passes. Produces a prioritized improvement plan directly.
• Adversarial: Full dual-agent pipeline with Skeptical Reader stress testing. Agent B simulates first-time discovery, competitive evaluation, and friction audits. Best for launch preparation, major releases, or when you want the deepest analysis.

Synergies

Skill/Workflow	Relationship
/doc-audit	Structural compliance — run first, then docs-marketer for marketing
skill-builder	Defines quality standards for skill docs; this skill applies marketing lens
adversarial-planner	Parent adversarial pattern — plan-level review
adversarial-skill-audit	Sibling — audits skill quality; this audits doc marketability
MCP Documentation Standards (KI)	Badge standards, wiki structure, release notes patterns