| name | doc-review |
| description | Document review via Codex MCP. Use when: reviewing .md docs, tech spec audit, document quality check. Not for: code review (use codex-code-review), test review (use test-review). Output: 5-dimension rating table + gate. |
| allowed-tools | mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, Bash(git:*), Read, Grep, Glob |
| context | fork |
| agent | Explore |
Document Review Skill
Trigger
- Keywords: review doc, document review, tech spec review, review-spec, doc-refactor, streamline doc
When NOT to Use
- Code review (use
codex-code-review)
- Test coverage review (use
test-review)
- Just want to read a document (use Read directly)
Commands
| Command | Description | Use Case |
|---|
/codex-review-doc | Codex reviews .md docs | Document changes |
/review-spec | Review tech spec | Spec confirmation |
/doc-refactor | Streamline documents | Doc too long |
/update-docs | Research & update docs | After code change |
Workflow: /codex-review-doc
Determine target → Read content → Codex review (5 dimensions) → Rating table + Gate → Loop if Needs revision
Step 1: Determine Target File
| Condition | Action |
|---|
| Path specified | Use that path directly |
| No path | Auto-detect: git modified .md → staged .md → new .md |
| Multiple files | List and ask user which to review |
Step 2: Read File Content
Read target file, save as FILE_CONTENT.
Step 3: Codex Review
First review: mcp__codex__codex with doc review prompt. See references/codex-prompt-doc.md.
Config: sandbox: 'read-only', approval-policy: 'never'
Save the returned threadId.
Loop review: mcp__codex__codex-reply with re-review template. See references/review-loop-doc.md.
Step 4: Consolidate Output
Organize results into rating table + severity-grouped findings + gate.
Review Dimensions
| Dimension | Checks |
|---|
| Architecture Design | System boundaries, responsibilities, dependencies, extensibility |
| Performance | Bottlenecks, concurrency, caching, resource usage |
| Security | Data leakage, access control, input validation, error handling |
| Documentation Quality | Structure, completeness, accuracy, examples, docs-writing standards |
| Code Consistency | Pseudocode matches codebase, referenced files exist, technical accuracy |
Review Loop
⚠️ @CLAUDE.md auto-loop: fix → re-review → ... → ✅ PASS ⚠️
⛔ Needs revision → fix 🔴 items → /codex-review-doc --continue <threadId> → repeat until ✅ Mergeable.
Max 3 rounds. Still failing → report blocker.
Verification
Required Actions
| Change Type | Must Execute |
|---|
.md docs | /codex-review-doc or /review-spec |
| Tech spec | /review-spec |
| README | /codex-review-doc |
References
- Doc review prompt:
references/codex-prompt-doc.md
- Review loop:
references/review-loop-doc.md
- Standards: @rules/docs-writing.md
Examples
Input: /codex-review-doc docs/features/xxx/tech-spec.md
Action: Read file → Codex doc prompt → Rating table + Findings + Gate
Input: /codex-review-doc
Action: Auto-detect changed .md → Codex doc prompt → Rating table + Gate
Input: Review this tech spec for me
Action: /review-spec → Check completeness/feasibility/risks → Output Gate
Input: This document is too long, streamline it
Action: /doc-refactor → Tabularize + Mermaid → Output comparison
