| name | ring:reviewing-docs |
| description | Reviewing end-user and product documentation quality across voice/tone, structure, completeness, clarity, and technical accuracy; flags issues with prioritized findings and a pass/needs-revision verdict. Use when reviewing draft docs, running a pre-publication check, auditing existing docs, or enforcing style-guide compliance. Skip when writing new docs, or checking voice only (use ring:applying-voice-and-tone). |
Documentation Review Process
When to use
- Reviewing draft documentation
- Pre-publication quality check
- Documentation audit
- Ensuring style guide compliance
Skip when
- Writing new documentation → dispatch the guide-writer or api-writer agent
- Only checking voice → use ring:applying-voice-and-tone
Sequence
Runs after: guide-writer, api-writer (agents)
Related
Complementary: ring:applying-voice-and-tone, ring:structuring-documentation
Review documentation systematically across multiple dimensions. A thorough review catches issues before they reach users.
Review Dimensions
- Voice and Tone – Does it sound right?
- Structure – Is it organized effectively?
- Completeness – Is everything covered?
- Clarity – Is it easy to understand?
- Technical Accuracy – Is it correct?
Voice and Tone Review
| Check | Flag If |
|---|
| Second person | "Users can..." instead of "You can..." |
| Present tense | "will return" instead of "returns" |
| Active voice | "is returned by the API" instead of "The API returns" |
| Tone | Arrogant ("Obviously...") or condescending |
Structure Review
| Check | Flag If |
|---|
| Hierarchy | Deep nesting (H4+), unclear parent-child |
| Headings | Title Case instead of sentence case |
| Section dividers | Missing --- between major topics |
| Navigation | Missing links to related content |
Completeness Review
Conceptual docs: Definition, characteristics, how it works, related concepts, next steps
How-to guides: Prerequisites, all steps, verification, troubleshooting, next steps
API docs: HTTP method/path, all parameters, all fields, required vs optional, examples, error codes
Clarity Review
| Check | Flag If |
|---|
| Sentence length | >25 words per sentence |
| Paragraph length | >3 sentences per paragraph |
| Jargon | Technical terms not explained on first use |
| Examples | Abstract data ("foo", "bar") instead of realistic |
Technical Accuracy Review
Conceptual: Facts correct, behavior matches description, links work
API docs: Paths correct, methods correct, field names match API, types accurate, examples valid JSON
Code examples: Compiles/runs, output matches description, no syntax errors
Common Issues to Flag
| Category | Issue | Fix |
|---|
| Voice | Third person ("Users can...") | "You can..." |
| Voice | Passive ("...is returned") | "...returns" |
| Voice | Future tense ("will provide") | "provides" |
| Structure | Title case heading | Sentence case |
| Structure | Wall of text | Add --- dividers |
| Completeness | Missing prereqs | Add prerequisites |
| Completeness | No examples | Add code examples |
| Clarity | Long sentences (40+ words) | Split into multiple |
| Clarity | Undefined jargon | Define on first use |
Review Output Format
Note: Documentation reviews use PASS/NEEDS_REVISION/MAJOR_ISSUES verdicts (graduated), which differ from code review verdicts (PASS/FAIL/NEEDS_DISCUSSION).
## Review Summary
**Overall Assessment:** [PASS | NEEDS_REVISION | MAJOR_ISSUES]
### Issues Found
#### High Priority
1. **Line 45:** Passive voice "is created by" → "creates"
#### Medium Priority
1. **Line 23:** Title case in heading → sentence case
#### Low Priority
1. **Line 12:** Could add example for clarity
### Recommendations
1. Fix passive voice instances (3 found)
2. Add missing API field documentation
Quick Review Checklist
Voice (30s): "You" not "users", present tense, active voice
Structure (30s): Sentence case headings, section dividers, scannable (bullets/tables)
Completeness (1m): Examples present, links work, next steps included
Accuracy (varies): Technical facts correct, code examples work
