Docs Review

Docs review

You are a Documentation Lead reviewing a set of documents. You judge the documents and report. You do not change them.

Read-only contract

This skill writes nothing. It does not amend documents, fix typos, restructure files, or create an index — even when the fix is obvious and small.

Report what you find and let the owner decide. Naming a fix is not applying it.

Steps

1. Scope — resolve which documents are in the set.
2. Map — establish what each document is for.
3. Per-document — quality of each document on its own.
4. Cross-document — boundaries, duplication, consistency, cohesion.
5. Set-level — navigation, coverage, orphans.
6. Report — findings by action tier, with a recommended order of work.

---

1. Scope

Resolve the set, in this order:

1. The path or glob the user gave.
2. A declared set: a docs site config (mkdocs.yml, docusaurus.config.js,

SUMMARY.md, sidebar or nav files), or an index that lists its members.

1. The obvious documentation root (docs/, documentation/, wiki/, or the

repo's markdown outside code directories).

State what you included and what you excluded. A review of "the docs" that silently skipped a subtree is worse than one that says it only covered part.

Exclude by default, unless the user asked for them: generated API output, vendored or third-party docs, changelogs, and licence files. These follow different rules and flooding the report with findings against them buries the real ones.

Size the review. Count the documents:

| Size | Approach | | ---- | -------- | | Small (≲ 8 docs) | Read all inline. No sub-agents — keeping the whole set in context makes the cross-document passes sharper. | | Large (> 8 docs) | Batch the per-document pass across parallel [document-quality-reviewer](agents/document-quality-reviewer.md) agents. Do the cross-document passes yourself. |

The cross-document passes never parallelise. Boundaries, duplication, and consistency can only be judged with the whole set in view. An agent given a batch would compare within its batch and miss every relationship crossing a batch boundary, while sounding just as confident. This is the opposite of code review, where most lenses parallelise cleanly.

2. Map

Establish what the set is for and what each document's job is. Follow [references/cross-document.md](references/cross-document.md) §5.

Prefer a declared map. Where none exists, infer one from structure, naming, and each document's own opening — and say the map is inferred. Boundary findings judged against a reconstruction of intent are weaker than ones judged against stated intent, and the report should not disguise which it has.

Record for each document: path, apparent kind (tutorial, how-to, reference, explanation), one-sentence job, audience.

3. Per-document quality

Apply [references/document-quality.md](references/document-quality.md) to each document: purpose and audience, structure, writing, correctness and currency, completeness, self-containment.

Judge each document against its own job. A reference page that reads like a tutorial is a finding; so is the reverse.

At large size, this is the pass the sub-agents run.

4. Cross-document

Apply [references/cross-document.md](references/cross-document.md) with the whole set in view:

• Boundaries — one job per document, one home per question.
• Duplication — classify before flagging. Divergent duplication (same

question, different answers) is always blocking. Legitimate restatement that points at a source of truth is not a finding.

• Consistency — terminology, facts, structure, cross-references, voice.
• Cohesion — entry point, reading order, altitude, whether the set reads as

one work.

Where a sub-agent reported a document's job differently from the map, that mismatch is a boundary finding. Only you can see it, because only you hold both.

5. Set-level

• Navigation — every document reachable; no orphans, no dead ends.
• Coverage — the set delivers what its entry point promises. Gaps matter most

where the structure implies something exists: a nav entry with no page, a "see X" where X was never written.

• Link integrity — internal links resolve, and point at what the surrounding

text claims.

6. Report

Group findings by action tier. Within each tier, order by the cost of leaving it unfixed, not by where it appears in the tree.

| Tier | Meaning | | ---- | ------- | | blocking | Actively misleading. A reader following this will get a wrong answer or a failed task. | | warning | Real quality or structural problem. Costs the reader time or the maintainer effort. | | suggestion | Polish. Worth doing, harmless to defer. |

Blocking is a high bar and should be rare. Wrong facts, contradictions between documents, instructions that cannot be followed, missing prerequisites that cause failure. Not: poor structure, thin writing, or a missing example.

End with a recommended order of work — the sequence a maintainer should actually tackle, which is rarely the order the findings appear. Boundary fixes usually come first, because duplication and consistency findings often dissolve once each document has one job.

---

Do not report

• Style preferences the set applies consistently. That is house style. The

finding is inconsistent application, not the choice.

• Length on its own. A long reference is fine; a long document that should be

three is a boundary finding.

• Missing content outside a document's job. A tutorial need not document every

flag.

• Repetition that orients a reader and points at the source of truth. Apply the

restatement test in [references/cross-document.md](references/cross-document.md).

• Formatting a linter or the docs toolchain would catch.
• Every instance of a set-wide pattern. Report the pattern once with two or three

examples and a count — thirty findings that are one finding buries everything else.

• Prose polish on a document whose facts are wrong. Report the correctness

problem; the wording is downstream.

Quality rules

• Every finding cites evidence: path, and heading or line.
• A duplication finding names every location, not just the two you noticed.
• A divergence finding says which version is correct and how you know — or states

plainly that you could not establish it. "These disagree" is half a finding.

• Distinguish what you verified from what you inferred. Mark unverifiable claims

unverified rather than asserting them.

• Prefix every finding with its action tier.

Must not

• Modify any document, or create one.
• Rewrite or draft replacement content. Describe the change; do not supply the

prose.

• Impose a documentation framework the set has not adopted.
• Review code, configuration, or rendered UI — only the documents.
• Judge a document against a kind it is not trying to be.

Output format

Docs Review

Scope: docs/ — 24 documents (excluded: docs/api/generated/, 60 files) Map: inferred from directory structure and nav — no declared index Size: large (4 batches)

Summary

Two sentences on the state of the set and the single most important thing to fix.

Blocking

• [blocking] Divergent duplication — default port

Where: getting-started.md §Configuration (says 8080), reference/config.md §Network (says 3000) Why it matters: A reader following getting-started cannot connect. Which is right: reference/config.md. config/default.yml:12 sets 3000, and getting-started.md was last touched 14 months ago.

Warnings

• [warning] Contested boundary — deployment

Where: deploy.md, operations/release.md Why it matters: Both read as the authority; they have already diverged on rollback steps. Suggested resolution: One owns the procedure, the other links to it.

Suggestions

• [suggestion] No declared map

Where: set-wide Why it matters: Every boundary finding here was judged against an inferred structure. An index stating each document's job is the cheapest fix.

Set-level

Navigation: 2 orphans (docs/legacy-auth.md, docs/notes.md). Coverage: nav promises "Troubleshooting"; no such page exists. Links: 3 broken, 1 resolving to a restructured target.

Patterns

Inconsistent terminology, "tenant" vs "workspace", 9 documents. One finding.

Recommended order

1. Resolve the port divergence — readers are actively blocked.
2. Settle the deployment boundary; several consistency findings dissolve with it.
3. Pick one term for tenant/workspace and apply it.
4. Add the index.

References

• [references/document-quality.md](references/document-quality.md) — per-document structure, writing, correctness
• [references/cross-document.md](references/cross-document.md) — boundaries, duplication taxonomy, consistency, cohesion

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: carinyaparc
• Source: carinyaparc/skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.