docs:review

flowchart TD
    START([docs:review]) --> GATHER["Phase 1: Gather changed docs"]
    GATHER --> ANALYZE["Phase 2: Analyze each file"]
    ANALYZE --> REPORT["Phase 3: Report findings"]
    REPORT --> SUBMIT["Phase 4: Post review"]

Follow this diagram as the workflow.

Documentation Review

AI-assisted review of documentation changes in Rossoctl PRs. Checks structure, accuracy, links, conciseness, and consistency against the meta:write-docs (planned) standards. Use alongside the automated Docs CI workflow (markdownlint, lychee) for comprehensive coverage.

Table of Contents

• When to Use
• Phase 1: Gather Changed Docs
• Phase 2: Analyze Each File
• Phase 3: Report Findings
• Phase 4: Post Review
• Review Checklist
• Related Skills

When to Use

• Reviewing a PR that adds or modifies docs/** or *.md files
• Validating documentation quality before merge
• Invoked as /docs:review <PR-number> or /docs:review (auto-detects current PR)

Phase 1: Gather Changed Docs

export LOG_DIR=/tmp/rossoctl/docs-review/$PR_NUMBER
mkdir -p $LOG_DIR

# Get list of changed markdown files
gh pr diff <PR-number> --name-only | grep '\.md$' > $LOG_DIR/changed-files.txt

# Save the full diff for context
gh pr diff <PR-number> > $LOG_DIR/pr.diff 2>&1

If no .md files are changed, report "No documentation changes found" and stop.

Phase 2: Analyze Each File

For each changed markdown file, read the full file and check against these categories. Use subagents for large PRs (>5 files changed).

2.1 Structure

• Single # title at the top of the file
• One-paragraph overview immediately after the title
• Table of Contents with working anchor links (required if >50 lines)
• --- horizontal rules between major sections
• Heading hierarchy is correct (no skipped levels like ## to ####)

2.2 Accuracy

• Shell commands are syntactically valid and runnable
• YAML/JSON snippets are valid (check indentation, quoting)
• Version numbers match current releases (check gh release list output)
• File paths referenced actually exist in the repo (ls or find to verify)
• Environment variables and config keys match actual code
• Kubernetes resource names, namespaces, and labels are consistent with the codebase

2.3 Links

• Internal cross-references ([text](../path.md)) point to existing files
• Anchor links ([text](#heading)) resolve to actual headings in the target file
• External URLs are reachable (defer to lychee CI for exhaustive checking)
• No bare URLs — all links use [descriptive text](url) format

2.4 Conciseness

• No unnecessary prose — prefer bullets and tables over paragraphs
• No redundant sections that repeat information available elsewhere
• Code blocks include only the relevant fields, not entire manifests
• Steps are numbered when order matters, bulleted when it does not
• List items are 1-2 lines max

2.5 Consistency

• Terminology is consistent (e.g., "GA release" not mixed with "stable release" without definition)
• Component names match official naming (e.g., "AuthBridge" not "auth bridge" or "Auth-Bridge")
• Code block language tags are present and correct (bash, yaml, text)
• Callout style matches project convention (> **Note:**, > **Warning:**, > **Tip:**)
• Formatting conventions from meta:write-docs (planned) are followed

Phase 3: Report Findings

Produce a structured summary grouped by severity:

## Documentation Review: PR #<number>

### Files reviewed
- `docs/getting-started/install.md` (modified)
- `docs/releasing.md` (new)

### Issues found

#### Must fix
- **docs/getting-started/install.md:42** — Broken anchor link `#choosing-a-version` (heading was renamed)
- **docs/releasing.md:15** — YAML snippet has incorrect indentation

#### Suggestions
- **docs/releasing.md:78** — This paragraph could be condensed to a bullet list
- **docs/getting-started/install.md:130** — Consider adding `git checkout` step to the OpenShift clone block

#### Looks good
- Structure follows `meta:write-docs` (planned) template
- All shell commands are syntactically valid
- Version numbers match current releases

Severity definitions

Severity	Meaning	Action
Must fix	Broken links, invalid commands, incorrect information	Block merge
Suggestion	Style improvements, conciseness, missing context	Optional
Looks good	Positive observations worth noting	Informational

Phase 4: Post Review

Present the review to the user. If the user approves, post as a GitHub PR review:

# Post as a review comment (not inline, to avoid noise on large PRs)
gh pr review <PR-number> --comment --body "$(cat $LOG_DIR/review-summary.md)"

For critical issues, use --request-changes instead of --comment.

Review Checklist

Quick reference for the complete review criteria:

• Title + overview paragraph present
• TOC with working anchors (if >50 lines)
• Section separators (---) between major sections
• Code blocks have language tags
• Commands are runnable
• YAML/JSON is valid
• Version numbers are current
• Internal links resolve
• No bare URLs
• Concise — no walls of text
• Consistent terminology
• Follows meta:write-docs (planned) conventions

Related Skills

• meta:write-docs (planned) — Documentation writing standards and templates
• github-pr-review — General PR review workflow (code + docs). Not bundled in this repo; import via /plugin install github-pr-review@rossoctl-agent-skills.
• repo:pr — PR creation conventions