// Review, approve, request changes on, or reject pending wiki edit drafts in Arkon. Requires editor or admin role. Triggers on: review drafts, pending reviews, check draft queue, approve draft, reject draft, request changes, send draft back, review wiki changes.
Propose or directly apply edits to Arkon wiki pages, including proposing brand new pages. Contributors create drafts for review; editors/admins can edit/create directly. Triggers on: update wiki, fix this page, propose edit, edit wiki page, correct the KB, improve wiki, resubmit my draft, withdraw my draft, create new wiki page, propose new page.
Answer questions using the Arkon knowledge base. Searches wiki first, drills into raw sources only when needed. Supports quick, standard, and deep modes. Triggers on: what do we know about, find in KB, look up, query:, arkon query, search the wiki, tell me about, based on the KB.
| name | arkon-review |
| description | Review, approve, request changes on, or reject pending wiki edit drafts in Arkon. Requires editor or admin role. Triggers on: review drafts, pending reviews, check draft queue, approve draft, reject draft, request changes, send draft back, review wiki changes. |
| allowed-tools | mcp__arkon__list_pending_drafts mcp__arkon__review_draft mcp__arkon__approve_draft mcp__arkon__reject_draft mcp__arkon__request_changes_on_draft mcp__arkon__read_wiki_page |
Editor/admin only. If list_pending_drafts returns a permission error, you don't have the required role.
list_pending_drafts()
Returns: draft ID, page slug, author, timestamp, note. Filter by workspace if needed:
list_pending_drafts(workspace_id="<uuid>")
review_draft(draft_id)
Returns side-by-side: proposed content and current page content (vN). Read both carefully.
You may also call read_wiki_page(slug) independently for fuller backlink context.
Approve as-is:
approve_draft(draft_id, reviewer_note="optional feedback to author")
Approve with your own edits (you want to tweak before publishing):
approve_draft(draft_id, edited_content_md="...", reviewer_note="approved with minor edits")
Request changes (the draft is on the right track but needs fixes; preferred over reject when iteration is realistic):
request_changes_on_draft(draft_id, reviewer_note="20+ char explanation — what to change and why")
The draft moves to needs_revision; author can resubmit_draft after addressing the note. The original draft stays — revision_round increments each round and prior submissions are snapshotted for diffing.
Reject (only when the proposal is fundamentally wrong — out of scope, factually broken, or duplicates an existing page):
reject_draft(draft_id, reviewer_note="clear reason why — required")
reviewer_note is required for both reject and request_changes — the author needs to understand what to fix. Prefer request_changes over reject unless the proposal cannot be salvaged.
Conflict on approve: if the page advanced past the draft's base_version while you were reviewing, approve_draft returns a conflict error. Re-call with allow_conflict=true to overwrite, or supply edited_content_md after merging the latest content yourself.
Self-approve is blocked: the server rejects approve attempts where the reviewer is also the author. Ask another editor.
When the draft was filed via propose_wiki_create, it has draft_kind: "create"
and no page exists yet — approval materialises a new page using the
contributor's suggested metadata. The reviewer may override before commit
via the REST endpoint body (in the portal UI):
final_slug — adjust the URL slugfinal_title — adjust the display titlefinal_page_type — change page_typefinal_knowledge_type_slugs — fix the taxonomy tags (matters for RBAC)Why adjust metadata? RBAC visibility is driven by knowledge_type_slugs;
slug shapes the URL forever; page_type affects how the page renders in the
index. Contributors are often not aware of the conventions — quietly fixing
these at approve is cheaper than asking them to resubmit.
If the slug already exists in the target scope, approval returns
409 slug_conflict — override final_slug or send the draft back with a
request_changes note explaining why.
Every draft carries an AI verdict (ai_check_status plus a list of checks):
passed — no warnings. Most likely safe to approve after a quick read.warned — soft issues: broken wikilinks, possible duplicates, tone
drift, scope-fit doubts. Read them; some are noise, some matter.failed — at least one PII / secret regex match. Read each match
carefully. The contributor may have meant to include it (look for a
<!-- pii-allow: ... --> marker above the match). If not, that's a
request_changes situation.The AI never blocks approval — it's a checklist, not a gate. Trust your own judgment.
Before approving, verify:
[[slug]] point to real pages, not broken referencesFor multiple drafts:
list_pending_drafts() — get the full queue.review_draft each one in order.Always confirm with the user before approving a batch of more than 3 drafts in one go.
status: rejected — they are not deleted.