docs-review

name	docs-review
description	Documentation review skill for checking style guide compliance. Use when the user asks to "review documentation", "check docs style", "review this markdown file", "check style guide compliance", "review PR documentation", or needs documentation reviewed against the writing style guide. Supports both local file review and GitHub PR review modes with inline comments.
triggers	["review documentation","check docs style","review this markdown file","check style guide compliance","review PR documentation"]

Documentation Review Skill

@_shared/style-guides/style-guide.md

Review mode detection

IMPORTANT: Before starting the review, determine which mode to use:

1. PR review mode: If the mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review tool is available, you are reviewing a GitHub PR

   • Use the pending review workflow to post all issues as one cohesive review
   • Follow the workflow steps in "PR review mode format" below

2. Local review mode: If the MCP tool is NOT available, output issues in the conversation

   • Format all issues in a numbered markdown list (as described in "Feedback format" below)

Review process

1. Detect review mode - Check if mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review is available
2. Read the changes through once to understand intent
3. Check all issues that violate style guide or significantly impact readability
4. Only flag issues worth mentioning - if it won't make a material difference to the reader, skip it
5. REQUIRED: Number ALL feedback sequentially - Start from Issue 1 and increment for each issue found

Review checklist

Run through the diff looking for these issues:

Tone and voice:

• Formal/corporate language ("utilize" not "use", "offerings", etc.)
• "Users" instead of "people" or "companies"
• Excessive exclamation points or overly peppy tone
• Telling readers something is cool instead of showing them

Structure and clarity:

• Important information buried instead of leading
• Verbose text that adds little value
• Paragraphs without clear purpose
• Vague headings that don't convey the point
• Instructions explain "why" before telling "what to do"
• Tasks described as "easy" or "simple"

Links and references:

• Linking the word "here" instead of descriptive text
• Links in headings (unless entire heading is a link)

Formatting:

• Ampersands as "and" substitute (except proper nouns)
• Inconsistent list formatting

Code and examples:

• Code examples that don't work or would error
• Commands not in execution order
• Full-width screenshots instead of scoped UI elements
• Excessive or unnecessary images

Sentence construction:

• Overuse of pronouns when introducing new terms

Quick scan table

Pattern	Issue
we can do X, our feature	Should be product name or "it"
click here, read more here	Need descriptive link text
easy, simple, just	Remove condescending qualifiers
users	Should be "people" or "companies" if possible

Feedback format

MANDATORY REQUIREMENT: Every single issue MUST be numbered sequentially starting from Issue 1.

This numbered format is NON-NEGOTIABLE. It allows users to efficiently reference specific issues (e.g., "fix issues 1, 3, and 5") and track which feedback has been addressed.

Local review mode format

When outputting issues in the conversation (local mode), use this format:

## Issues

**Issue 1: [Brief title]**
Line X: Succinct description of the issue
[code or example]
Suggested fix or succinct explanation

**Issue 2: [Brief title]**
Line Y: Description of the issue
Suggested fix or explanation

**Issue 3: [Brief title]**
...

Examples:

Issue 1: Formal tone Line 15: This could be more conversational. Consider: "You can't..." instead of "You cannot..."

Issue 2: Vague heading Line 8: The heading could be more specific. Try stating the point directly: "Run migrations before upgrading" vs "Upgrade process"

PR review mode format

When posting to GitHub (PR mode), use the pending review workflow:

Workflow steps:

1. Start a review: Use mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review to begin a pending review

   • This creates a draft review that won't be visible until submitted

2. Get diff information: Use mcp__github__get_pull_request_diff to understand the code changes and line numbers

   • This helps you determine the correct file paths and line numbers for comments

3. Identify ALL issues: Read through all changes and identify every issue worth mentioning

   • Collect all issues before posting any comments
   • Number them sequentially (Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, etc.)

4. Add review comments: Use mcp__github__add_pull_request_review_comment_to_pending_review for each issue

   • CRITICAL: Post ALL comments in a SINGLE response using multiple tool calls in parallel
   • Each comment should reference a specific file path and line number from the diff
   • Start each comment body with **Issue N: [Brief title]**
   • Include the description and suggested fix

5. Submit the review: Use mcp__github__submit_pending_pull_request_review to publish all comments at once

   • Use event type "COMMENT" (NOT "REQUEST_CHANGES") to make it non-blocking
   • Do NOT include a body message - Leave the body empty or omit it entirely
   • All comments will appear together as one cohesive review

Comment format example:

**Issue 1: Formal tone**

This could be more conversational. Consider: "You can't..." instead of "You cannot..."

IMPORTANT:

• Each issue gets its own review comment attached to the pending review
• Number ALL comments sequentially (Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, etc.)
• Always start the comment body with **Issue N: [Brief title]**
• MUST add all comments in parallel in a single response - Do NOT add them one after another in separate responses
• Do NOT output a summary message to the conversation - only post GitHub review comments
• When submitting the review, do NOT include a body parameter (or leave it empty) to avoid cluttering the PR with summary text
• The review will appear as a single review with multiple comments when submitted

Final check

1. Remove any issues from your assessment that won't make a material difference to the reader if addressed. Only flag issues worth the author's time to fix.
2. Verify all issues are numbered sequentially starting from Issue 1 with no gaps in numbering.
3. Confirm the format exactly matches: **Issue N: [Brief title]** where N is the issue number.
4. In PR mode: Verify each issue was posted as a separate GitHub comment (not output to conversation).