← Back to Documents & Office

Document an existing repository

Compare documentation workflows for READMEs, architecture, APIs, onboarding, and maintainable code-linked handoffs.

Last meaningful review July 20, 2026

The job

You have an existing codebase and need documentation grounded in its real structure, behavior, and maintainer conventions.

IncludedREADME and onboarding documentation · architecture or module documentation · maintainer and API documentation

Not this pagemarketing copy · greenfield system design · documentation hosting setup

30-second route

01

You need to create or review multiple existing documentation surfaces, including README, docs, contributor guidance, or instruction files.

It explicitly supports brownfield build/review work, documentation-surface inventory, compatibility with current IA, and validation handoff.

Editorial confidence: high
Consider Technical Documentation
02

You need to understand an unfamiliar repository and produce a concise onboarding guide or CLAUDE.md from observed structure and conventions.

Its four phases directly cover reconnaissance, architecture mapping, convention detection, and onboarding artifacts.

Editorial confidence: high
Consider Codebase Onboarding
03

You need a navigable reference wiki with module pages and Mermaid architecture, class, or sequence diagrams.

It explicitly produces a bounded multi-file wiki with diagrams and verification steps.

Editorial confidence: high
Consider Code Wiki
04

You want Code Wiki output committed under the repository rather than its default external wiki location.

The source says in-repository output occurs only when explicitly requested.

Editorial confidence: high
Adapt the Code Wiki run by explicitly requesting docs/wiki/ as the output location.

Before you install

Install all three selected Skills.

Each directly performs a distinct, source-supported documentation workflow for an existing repository, and their supplied content hashes differ. Use the route that matches the desired deliverable and output location.

Read the intervention guide →

Source-led comparison

What changes the choice

Facts are extracted from each selected Skill’s declared workflow. Signals describe public adoption; they are not a universal score.

Source notes

Inspect evidence and candidate limits 3 candidates

Why these candidatesEach candidate comes from tracked public sources and has a source-attributed adoption signal. This is a shortlist, not a catalogue or global ranking.

What this cannot establishWe read declared instructions and public signals. We do not run skills, benchmark outputs, audit security, or claim a universal best choice.

01

Technical Documentation

Source ↗

Use it forBroad brownfield documentation work spanning repository docs, governance files, reviews, and maintainable handoff notes.

Avoid ifYou only need a narrowly scoped, guided onboarding artifact or a standalone wiki.

ActionInstall and use for build or review documentation work across an existing repository.

EditsInventory current documentation and instruction surfaces first; preserve the existing docs IA and define multilingual parity where relevant.

SetupProvide the desired audience, file/diff scope, framework constraints, investigation depth, and remediation mode.

Inspect workflow and compatibility details

ContextSupports build/review classification and brownfield mode, with documentation-surface coverage and validation notes.

OutputUpdated documentation or review findings, validation notes, coverage map, governance alignment, and remaining gaps.

ControlStructured workflow with optional bounded sub-agent discovery and synthesis for large repositories.

InvocationNot yet mapped from the source.

Install scopeNot yet mapped from the source.

Agent fitStrong default for comprehensive, maintainable repository documentation.

Watch outIts scope includes governance and agent-instruction files, so specify a narrower file scope when those surfaces are out of scope.

Source-visible capabilitiesBrownfield documentation workflowClassifies build/review and brownfield/evergreen work; inventories docs, README, governance, and framework sources.explicit sourceValidation and maintainability handoffReturns validation notes, coverage maps, issue findings, parity status, and remaining gaps.explicit source
CompatibilityRepository documentation workflowsdeclarednot runtime-tested
Public signal99 /SkillsMP source-specificbest-overallbrownfielddocs-auditgovernanceexplicit source
02

Codebase Onboarding

Source ↗

Use it forA concise, evidence-led onboarding guide and starter or updated CLAUDE.md for an unfamiliar existing repository.

Avoid ifYou need a full documentation audit, API reference set, or multi-module wiki.

ActionInstall and run the four-phase reconnaissance-to-onboarding workflow.

EditsGenerate or enhance the existing CLAUDE.md rather than replacing it; retain detected repository conventions and mark uncertainties.

SetupPoint it at the repository and request either the full onboarding guide plus CLAUDE.md or only the CLAUDE.md output.

Inspect workflow and compatibility details

ContextStarts with package, framework, entry-point, structure, configuration, and test discovery, then maps architecture and conventions.

OutputStructured onboarding guide with architecture, entry points, directory map, request lifecycle, conventions, common tasks, plus a project CLAUDE.md.

ControlFour-phase reconnaissance, architecture mapping, convention detection, and artifact generation.

InvocationNot yet mapped from the source.

Install scopeNot yet mapped from the source.

Agent fitBest focused choice for maintainers or contributors getting oriented quickly.

Watch outThe supplied workflow is written in Chinese; choose it when that source language and its focused onboarding deliverables suit the team.

Source-visible capabilitiesRepository reconnaissanceDetects manifests, framework signals, entry points, shallow structure, tooling, and tests without reading every file.explicit sourceOnboarding and CLAUDE.md artifactsProduces an onboarding guide and generates or enhances a project-specific CLAUDE.md from detected conventions.explicit source
CompatibilityExisting repositoriesdeclarednot runtime-tested
Public signal286 /SkillsMP source-specificonboardingarchitecture-mapclaude-mdhigher-popular-rank-than-equivalent-english-workflowexplicit source
03

Code Wiki

Source ↗

Use it forA stable, repository-grounded reference wiki with architecture, module deep-dives, onboarding, API coverage where applicable, and Mermaid diagrams.

Avoid ifYou need strategic rationale documentation or want documentation written into the repository without explicitly requesting that location.

ActionInstall and use to generate a bounded wiki from the target repository.

EditsFor large repositories, confirm the selected module list; explicitly request docs/wiki output if the wiki belongs in the repository.

SetupRun from the target repository root; git is required for SHA tracking, while pygount is optional.

Inspect workflow and compatibility details

ContextDefaults to an external wiki directory, caps the initial pass at 8–10 modules, and supports incremental-update checks through a state file.

OutputREADME, architecture document, per-module docs, class and sequence Mermaid diagrams, getting-started guide, optional API doc, and state file.

ControlRepository scan followed by bounded module selection, grounded writing, and output verification.

InvocationNot yet mapped from the source.

Install scopeNot yet mapped from the source.

Agent fitBest specialist option when the handoff should be a navigable reference wiki rather than general documentation maintenance.

Watch outThe default output is outside the repository; it writes to docs/wiki only on explicit request.

Source-visible capabilitiesComprehensive code wikiCreates overview, architecture, per-module documentation, and Mermaid class and sequence diagrams from a codebase.explicit sourceBounded and verifiable generationCaps the initial module pass, avoids vendored/generated code, and verifies generated Mermaid blocks and expected files.explicit source
CompatibilityLinuxdeclarednot runtime-testedmacOSdeclarednot runtime-testedWindowsdeclarednot runtime-tested
Public signal1067 /SkillsMP source-specificwikimermaidmodule-referencearchitectureexplicit source

Still comparing?

Tell us the job, not just the skill names.

Request a task guide
Did this decision map help?