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 Kagenti 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/kagenti/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/install.md` (modified)
- `docs/releasing.md` (new)

### Issues found

#### Must fix
- **docs/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/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

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)
• repo:pr — PR creation conventions