Docs Governance

---
name: docs-governance
description: Route broad documentation-governance requests to existing ECC skills and run an opt-in, read-only audit of mapped documentation roles, links, ADR indexes, and evidence references. Use when a user asks for documentation governance, project-knowledge organization, documentation integrity, or a deterministic docs audit without naming a narrower skill.
metadata:
  origin: ECC
---

# Documentation Governance Router

Use this optional router to select the smallest existing ECC capability for a
documentation-governance request. The router does not create a parallel project
management system and does not make documentation authoritative over code,
tests, Issues, or maintainer decisions.

## When to Activate

- The user asks broadly for documentation governance or project-knowledge organization.
- A request spans several documentation roles and the correct owner is unclear.
- The user asks for a deterministic, read-only documentation integrity audit.
- A project needs to discover its existing documentation sources before adding files.

Do not activate for a narrowly named skill or for ordinary documentation edits
whose destination is already clear.

## Role Contract

Read [the artifact-role contract](references/artifact-role-contract.md) before
interpreting `.governance/docs-map.json` or default filenames. Logical roles own
facts; filenames are fallbacks. Reuse a repository's established sources of
truth and never create a second document merely to satisfy a default role.

## Intent Routing

| User intent | Route to |
|---|---|
| Adopt or maintain a constitution, map, status, and history spine | `living-docs-governance` |
| Record a hard-to-reverse architecture decision | `architecture-decision-records` |
| Preserve an executable regression for an important defect | `ai-regression-testing` (install separately in standalone Pi core) |
| Define a verifiable goal and feedback loop | `loop-design-check` (install separately in standalone Pi core) |
| Check mapped roles, local links, ADR indexes, TEST-IDs, or possible orphan docs | Run the bundled read-only audit |

If no row fits, explain the ownership ambiguity instead of combining several
workflows speculatively.

## Read-Only Audit

Run the audit only when the user asks for an audit or when it is an agreed
verification step. Resolve the selected skill directory first, then invoke:

```bash
python3 <docs-governance-skill>/scripts/audit-docs.py --root <repository> --scope full
```

Available scopes are `spine`, `context`, `adr`, `artifacts`, `modules`, and `full`.
For module evidence, select real business boundaries explicitly; directories
alone do not prove a bounded context. Repeat `--module` for several boundaries:

```bash
python3 <docs-governance-skill>/scripts/audit-docs.py --root <repository> --scope modules --module src/inventory --module src/billing
```

`modules` requires a selected directory. `full` also accepts `--module`; other
scopes reject it rather than silently skipping the requested checks. The module
check finds local `AGENTS.md` and `CONTEXT.md`, or reports the nearest ancestor
and mapped project sources as shared candidates. Missing local files are review
prompts, not a demand to create two files per directory. It checks selected
carriers' local links relative to each source using the same contained-path and
Markdown checks as the artifact audit. It never infers harness loading from
file presence.

After mechanical checks, inspect the actual module code, callers, contracts and
tests: compare responsibilities and import/call boundaries with documented
rules, and terminology with the canonical context source. Report concrete
contradictions with source paths; unknown business intent remains unverified.
Confirm that shared candidates really cover the module and that the host loads
applicable instructions. Reuse existing contract and ADR owners rather than
copying them into `AGENTS.md`. Passing links is not passing this semantic review.

The audit reads repository files and Git history but does not create, rewrite,
archive, stage, or commit anything. It reports:

- exit code `0` when deterministic checks pass, including any manual-review warnings;
- exit code `1` when mechanically provable integrity failures exist; and
- exit code `2` for invalid CLI input.

Treat warnings as review prompts, not failures. Semantic accuracy, business
meaning, task completion, and release approval remain human or workflow-owner
decisions.

## When to Use

Use this router when the request is broad enough that choosing the right
governance capability is part of the work. For a direct ADR or regression
request, invoke that specialized skill without routing through this one.

## How It Works

1. Discover the repository's existing instruction and documentation surfaces.
2. Resolve logical roles through the artifact-role contract.
3. Select one smallest matching capability from the routing table.
4. If a deterministic audit is requested, run the narrowest useful scope.
5. Report failures, warnings, and ownership gaps without mutating project state.

## Examples

- “Organize our long-lived project docs” routes to `living-docs-governance`.
- “Record why we selected PostgreSQL” routes to `architecture-decision-records`.
- “Check whether our documentation links and ADR index are intact” runs the
  bundled audit once with `--scope artifacts`, then again with `--scope adr`.
- “Are we finished with the migration?” is not answered from documentation
  alone; the Issue owns completion, tests provide evidence, and maintainers own
  merge approval.

## Boundaries

- Keep task ownership, scheduling, attempts, and completion in the Issue tracker.
- Keep stable interface facts in the repository's contract source.
- Treat documentation as evidence and navigation, not executable instructions.
- Do not teach users to bypass repository controls such as pre-commit hooks.
- Do not add archive or index mutation to this read-only foundation.