improve-documentation

Improve Documentation

Full-cycle documentation quality review for the docs/ directory. Covers accuracy, link integrity, consistency, duplication, gaps, and readability. Ends with a structured proposal that can be written to a file.

When to Use

• Auditing docs before a release
• After major feature changes (refresh engine, CDC, DVM, scheduling)
• When users report confusing or incorrect docs
• Periodic quality reviews

---

Procedure

Work through the phases below in order. Track progress with a checklist.

Documentation Review Progress:
- [ ] Phase 1: Inventory
- [ ] Phase 2: Accuracy check
- [ ] Phase 3: Link check
- [ ] Phase 4: Gap analysis
- [ ] Phase 5: Consistency & duplication
- [ ] Phase 6: Readability
- [ ] Phase 6.5: Onboarding path audit
- [ ] Phase 7: Proposal

---

Phase 1 — Inventory

ls docs/
wc -l docs/*.md docs/**/*.md 2>/dev/null | sort -rn | head -40

Read docs/SUMMARY.md (table of contents) and docs/introduction.md to understand the intended structure and audience.

For a scoped review, restrict to the requested file or topic. For a full review, sample every file: read the first 60 lines of each.

---

Phase 2 — Accuracy Check

For each doc (or the scoped file), verify claims against the actual codebase.

Cross-reference these sources:

# Spot-check a GUC name
grep -n "pg_trickle\." src/config.rs | head -20

# Spot-check a SQL function name
grep -n "#\[pg_extern" src/api.rs | head -20

# Spot-check schema references
grep -rn 'schema = "pgtrickle"' src/ | head -10

Flag every factual discrepancy with:

• File and line number in the doc
• What it says
• What the code actually shows

---

Phase 3 — Link Check

Check all inter-doc Markdown links and any links to source files.

# Extract all relative links from docs
grep -roh '\[.*\](\([^)]*\))' docs/ | grep -v 'http' | head -60

# Check that linked files exist
python3 - <<'EOF'
import re, os, sys
docs_root = "docs"
errors = []
for root, _, files in os.walk(docs_root):
    for f in files:
        if not f.endswith(".md"):
            continue
        path = os.path.join(root, f)
        with open(path) as fh:
            for i, line in enumerate(fh, 1):
                for m in re.finditer(r'\[.*?\]\(([^)#?]+)', line):
                    target = m.group(1)
                    if target.startswith("http"):
                        continue
                    resolved = os.path.normpath(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(path), target))
                    if not os.path.exists(resolved):
                        errors.append(f"{path}:{i} -> {target}")
if errors:
    print(f"{len(errors)} broken link(s):")
    for e in errors:
        print(" ", e)
else:
    print("All relative links OK")
EOF

Flag every broken link with file, line, and the broken target.

---

Phase 4 — Gap Analysis

Compare what the code supports against what is documented.

Key areas to check for coverage:

• Every GUC in src/config.rs has an entry in docs/GUC_CATALOG.md
• Every SQL function in src/api.rs appears in docs/SQL_REFERENCE.md
• Every error variant in src/error.rs appears in docs/ERRORS.md
• CDC modes in src/cdc.rs / src/wal_decoder.rs match docs/CDC_MODES.md
• DVM operators in src/dvm/operators/ are listed in docs/DVM_OPERATORS.md
• DVM rewrite rules match docs/DVM_REWRITE_RULES.md
• Limitations in src/dvm/parser/validation.rs match docs/LIMITATIONS.md

# Count pg_extern functions
grep -c "#\[pg_extern" src/api.rs

# Count GUC definitions
grep -c "GucSetting\|GucSwitch\|GucString" src/config.rs

# Count error variants
grep -c "^\s*[A-Z][a-zA-Z]*(" src/error.rs

Note gaps where documented behaviour differs from or is absent from code.

---

Phase 5 — Consistency & Duplication

Terminology consistency — scan for mixed usage of key terms:

# Check for mixed capitalisation / naming
grep -rni "stream table\|streamtable\|streaming table" docs/ | head -20
grep -rni "differential refresh\|diff refresh\|incremental refresh" docs/ | head -20
grep -rni "change buffer\|change-buffer\|changebuffer" docs/ | head -20
grep -rni "pg_trickle\|pgtrickle\|pg-trickle" docs/ | head -30

Identify which variant is authoritative (use docs/GLOSSARY.md and src/lib.rs as ground truth) and flag deviations.

Duplication detection — look for near-identical sections across files:

# Find files with very similar opening paragraphs
head -5 docs/*.md | grep -v "^==>" | sort | uniq -d | head -20

Flag content that appears nearly verbatim in more than one place.

---

Phase 6 — Readability Assessment

For each doc (or the scoped file), note:

• Missing context: Does it assume knowledge not linked or explained?
• Undefined jargon: Terms used before they are defined (compare to docs/GLOSSARY.md)
• Structural issues: No introduction, no examples, walls of text
• Stale examples: Code snippets that reference functions or options that no longer exist
• Audience mismatch: Is this for operators, developers, or both? Is it clear?

Do not rewrite yet — just note the issue and the location.

---

Phase 6.5 — Onboarding Path Audit

Walk the new-user journey from zero to first working stream table. This is the highest-leverage UX review because it is the path every user takes exactly once and can never retry with fresh eyes.

Entry points to walk (in order):

1. docs/QUICKSTART_5MIN.md — can a user copy-paste every block and succeed?
2. docs/GETTING_STARTED.md — does it pick up where the quickstart left off?
3. First tutorial in docs/tutorials/ — does it assume knowledge not yet introduced?

For each step, check:

• Prerequisites listed upfront: PostgreSQL version, OS, required tools (psql, docker, just, extension version). Missing prereqs cause silent failures that users blame on the extension.
• Steps are in the right order: No step depends on an action not yet taken.
• Each SQL block is runnable as-is: No placeholder values left without clear callouts (e.g. <your_table> must be visually distinct).
• Expected output is shown: After each command, does the doc show what success looks like? Users don't know if they're on track without it.
• Error paths are acknowledged: At least one "if this fails, check X" callout per major step.
• Time estimate is realistic: If the quickstart promises "5 minutes", walk it and time it. Flag if it is materially longer.
• Links to next steps: After completing the quickstart, is it obvious where to go next?

# Check that the extension version mentioned in quickstart matches reality
grep -i 'version\|0\.[0-9]' docs/QUICKSTART_5MIN.md | head -10
cat pg_trickle.control | grep default_version

Flag every onboarding friction point with the file, step number, and the exact user action that would fail or confuse.

---

Phase 7 — Proposal

Compile all findings into a structured proposal.

Format:

# Documentation Improvement Proposal
Generated: <date>
Scope: <all docs | specific file/topic>

## Summary
<2–3 sentences: how many issues, severity distribution>

## Critical (breaks user experience)
### C1 — <short title>
- File: docs/FILENAME.md, line N
- Issue: <what is wrong>
- Fix: <concrete action>

## Major (misleads or confuses)
### M1 — <short title>
...

## Minor (polish, consistency)
### m1 — <short title>
...

## Gaps (undocumented features)
### G1 — <feature or GUC name>
- Missing from: docs/FILENAME.md
- Source: src/...

## Recommendations (structural)
### R1 — <title>
- Rationale: ...
- Action: ...

After presenting the proposal, ask:

"Should I write this proposal to a file (e.g. docs/IMPROVEMENT_PLAN.md)?"

If the user says yes, write it using the create_file tool (not shell echo or heredoc, to avoid Unicode corruption).

---

Reference

See REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md for the per-file checklist used during phases 2–6.5.

See docs/GLOSSARY.md for authoritative terminology. See AGENTS.md for coding conventions that affect accuracy checks.