documentation-review

name	documentation-review
description	Use when reviewing documentation for accuracy, completeness, and alignment with source code. Catches doc-code drift before it confuses readers.
version	1.0.0
author	Aixlarity
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"aixlarity":{"tags":["documentation","review","quality","accuracy"],"related_skills":["code-review","writing-plans"]}}

Documentation Review

Core Principle

Documentation that disagrees with the source code is worse than no documentation. It actively misleads.

Checklist

For every documentation page, verify:

1. Code references exist — Every code block that references a file path, function name, or CLI command must correspond to something that actually exists in the repo.
2. Feature status is honest — Does the doc say "supports X"? Check if X is implemented, partially wired, or just a stub. Use honest labels.
3. Examples are runnable — Can a reader copy-paste the example and get the described result?
4. Numbers are current — Tool counts, file counts, test counts, line counts. These drift fast.
5. Links work — Internal cross-references between chapters. External URLs.

Severity Levels

• CRITICAL: Doc claims a feature exists but the code does not implement it.
• WARNING: Doc example would fail if a reader tried it (wrong path, missing flag).
• INFO: Minor wording issues, outdated screenshots, style inconsistencies.

In the Aixlarity Codebase

Key areas prone to doc-code drift:

• docs/chapters/home.html — stats (tool count, test count)
• docs/chapters/u1.html — install instructions, git clone URL
• README.md — feature list, architecture diagram
• docs/chapters/comp.html — comparison claims