doc-review

name	doc-review
description	Use this skill to perform adversarial review of AsciiDoc documentation against context sources. Checks factual accuracy, completeness, consistency, and hallucination. Produces workspace/review-findings.json.
argument-hint	<file-or-directory> [--context workspace/context-package.json]
model	claude-opus-4-6
effort	high

doc-review

Perform adversarial comparison of documentation content against context sources to detect inaccuracies, omissions, and hallucinations.

Prerequisites

• AsciiDoc files to review (specified in arguments)
• workspace/context-package.json should exist for cross-reference checking

Parse arguments

$ARGUMENTS contains:

1. Target: file path, directory, or glob pattern for AsciiDoc files to review
2. --context (optional): path to context package (defaults to workspace/context-package.json)

Step 1: Discover files

Resolve the target to a list of .adoc files:

• Single file: review that file
• Directory: glob **/*.adoc
• Glob pattern: expand it

Step 2: Load context

Read workspace/context-package.json and extract:

• Ticket metadata (summary, description, components)
• Context files with content (source code, API specs, architecture docs, existing docs)
• Product conventions

Group context files by type for targeted comparison:

• Source code: .go, .py, .java files — authoritative for API behavior
• API specs: *_types.go, *.yaml CRD files — authoritative for field names and schemas
• Architecture docs: .md files from architecture repos — authoritative for design
• Existing docs: .adoc files — reference for style and terminology

Step 3: Review each file

For each AsciiDoc file, read its content and construct a review prompt combining:

1. Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/prompts/review-content.md template
2. The documentation content being reviewed
3. Relevant context files (matched by topic/component)
4. Ticket metadata

Ask the LLM to perform adversarial review:

• Factual accuracy: Compare every technical claim against source code and API specs
• Completeness: Check if important details from the ticket and context are covered
• Consistency: Verify terminology matches existing documentation
• Hallucination check: Flag any API fields, CLI flags, config options, or behaviors not found in context sources

Step 4: Compile findings

Merge findings from all reviewed files:

{
    "reviewed_at": "2026-04-14T10:50:00Z",
    "files_reviewed": 3,
    "confidence": 0.78,
    "summary": "Documentation is largely accurate but has 2 technical issues...",
    "findings": [
        {
            "category": "technical_inaccuracy",
            "severity": "high",
            "description": "The documented API field 'replicas' should be 'minReplicas'",
            "file_path": "modules/serving/pages/ref_model-serving-params.adoc",
            "line_start": 42,
            "line_end": 42,
            "context_source": "api/v1alpha1/servingruntime_types.go:87",
            "suggestion": "Change 'replicas' to 'minReplicas' per the CRD type definition"
        
    
     
         
         
         
         
    

Step 5: Write findings

Write workspace/review-findings.json.

Output

Primary: workspace/review-findings.json Report to caller: confidence score, total findings by severity, files reviewed.

Stop conditions

• Halt: No files found matching target
• Warn and continue: Context package missing (review without cross-reference)
• Continue: Individual file review fails (record error, continue with others)