review-docs

name	review-docs
description	Review documentation quality and consistency. Use when user wants to review docs/website documentation, or after documentation changes.

Documentation Review

Review docs/website/ documentation from 4 perspectives in parallel and output a findings report.

Constraints

• Do NOT modify any files during the review. Only read and report.
• Exclude docs/website/docs/reference/api/** (auto-generated from OpenAPI).
• Exclude docs/website/node_modules/**, build/**, .docusaurus/**.

Steps

1. Read reviewer prompts

Read all 4 reviewer prompt files:

• .claude/skills/review-docs/reviewers/code-consistency-reviewer.md
• .claude/skills/review-docs/reviewers/structure-reviewer.md
• .claude/skills/review-docs/reviewers/writing-quality-reviewer.md
• .claude/skills/review-docs/reviewers/i18n-sync-reviewer.md

2. Dispatch 4 parallel reviewer agents

Launch all 4 agents in a single message using the Agent tool (one tool call per reviewer). Pass each reviewer's prompt file content as the agent's prompt. Use description values:

• "CC: code-doc consistency"
• "ST: doc structure review"
• "WQ: writing quality review"
• "I18N: i18n sync review"

3. Collect and merge findings

After all agents return:

1. Parse each agent's output for findings in the format: [D-{CODE}-NNN] {Severity} | {file} | {description}
2. Deduplicate: if two reviewers report the same file+location, keep the finding from the more relevant perspective. Specifically for WQ vs I18N: keep I18N for translation-staleness issues, keep WQ for language-quality issues.
3. Group by severity: Critical → Major → Minor.
4. Count findings per perspective for the Summary table.
5. Select up to 5 Top Recommendations (Critical first, then Major by impact breadth).

4. Write report

Check for existing reports with today's date:

• If docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-docs-review.md exists, append -2, -3, etc.

Write the report using this template:

# Documentation Review Report

> Date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
> Target: `docs/website/docs/` (excluding `reference/api/`)

## Summary

| Perspective | Critical | Major | Minor |
|-------------|----------|-------|-------|
| Code Consistency | {n} | {n} | {n} |
| Structure | {n} | {n} | {n} |
| Writing Quality | {n} | {n} | {n} |
| i18n Sync | {n} | {n} | {n} |

## Findings

### Critical

- [ ] [D-{CODE}-NNN] **Critical** | `{Perspective}` | `{doc file path}` | {Description}
  > Evidence: {details}
  > Source: `{source code path:line}` (CC only)

### Major

- [ ] [D-{CODE}-NNN] **Major** | `{Perspective}` | `{doc file path}` | {Description}
  > Evidence: {details}
  > Source: `{source code path:line}` (CC only)

### Minor

- [ ] [D-{CODE}-NNN] **Minor** | `{Perspective}` | `{doc file path}` | {Description}
  > Evidence: {details}

## Top Recommendations

1. **[D-{CODE}-NNN]** — {action summary}

---
*Generated by Documentation Review | {YYYY-MM-DD}*

5. Report to user

Tell the user the report path and a brief summary of finding counts.