google-labs-jules[bot] b78e2325fe docs: Audit and improve documentation

This commit addresses the need for more comprehensive documentation by first conducting an audit to identify gaps and then creating the necessary documentation to fill them.

The following files have been added:

-   `AUDIT-DOCUMENTATION.md`: A detailed audit of the project's documentation, evaluating its completeness and quality.
-   `ARCHITECTURE.md`: A high-level overview of the project's architecture, including a component diagram.
-   `docs/FAQ.md`: A frequently asked questions page to help users with common questions.
-   `docs/TROUBLESHOOTING.md`: A guide to help users troubleshoot common issues.

These additions will improve the overall quality of the project's documentation, making it more accessible and useful for both new and existing users.

Co-authored-by: Snider <631881+Snider@users.noreply.github.com>

2026-02-02 01:17:49 +00:00

3.1 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

Documentation Audit Report

This document outlines the findings of a comprehensive audit of the Poindexter project's documentation. The audit assesses the completeness and quality of the documentation across several categories.

1. README Assessment

The README.md file is comprehensive and well-structured.

Project Description: Clear and concise.
Quick Start: Excellent, with runnable examples.
Installation: Clear go get instructions.
Configuration: N/A (no environment variables).
Examples: Well-documented with links to the examples directory.
Badges: Comprehensive (CI, coverage, version, etc.).

Conclusion: The README is in excellent shape.

2. Code Documentation

The inline code documentation for public APIs is of high quality.

Function Docs: Public APIs in poindexter.go and kdtree.go are well-documented.
Parameter Types: All parameter types are clearly documented.
Return Values: Return values are documented.
Examples: pkg.go.dev examples are present and helpful.
Outdated Docs: No outdated documentation was identified.

Conclusion: The code-level documentation is excellent.

3. Architecture Documentation

This is an area with significant room for improvement.

System Overview: A dedicated high-level architecture document is missing.
Data Flow: There is no specific documentation on data flow.
Component Diagram: No visual representation of components is available.
Decision Records: No Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) were found.

Conclusion: The project would benefit from a dedicated architecture document.

4. Developer Documentation

The developer documentation is sufficient for new contributors.

Contributing Guide: CONTRIBUTING.md is present and covers the essential.
Development Setup: Covered in CONTRIBUTING.md.
Testing Guide: Covered in the Makefile section of the README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md.
Code Style: Mentioned in CONTRIBUTING.md.

Conclusion: Developer documentation is adequate.

5. User Documentation

The user documentation is good but could be improved by adding dedicated sections for common issues.

User Guide: The docs directory serves as a good user guide.
FAQ: A dedicated FAQ section is missing.
Troubleshooting: A dedicated troubleshooting guide is missing.
Changelog: CHANGELOG.md is present and well-maintained.

Conclusion: The user documentation is strong but could be enhanced with FAQ and troubleshooting guides.

Summary of Documentation Gaps

Based on this audit, the following gaps have been identified:

Architecture Documentation: The project lacks a formal architecture document. A high-level overview with a component diagram would be beneficial for new contributors.
FAQ: A frequently asked questions page would help users quickly find answers to common problems without needing to create an issue.
Troubleshooting Guide: A dedicated guide for troubleshooting common issues would be a valuable resource for users, providing clear steps for resolution.

3.1 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History