docs-review-fix

name	docs-review-fix
description	Use when the user wants to review and fix documentation correctness/staleness across a set of files — broken code examples, stale APIs, wrong file paths, dead links, version drift, contradictions. Operates on READMEs and docs/ markdown. Output is a local branch plus a report. Never opens PRs or issues; never edits prose for grammar/style/voice.
disable-model-invocation	true
user-invocable	true

docs-review-fix

Overview

Six-stage multi-agent pipeline that finds and fixes correctness/staleness bugs in markdown documentation across a file list. A pre-filter drops auto-generated docs; parallel Sonnet reviewers find candidate issues; an Opus gate validates them and filters noise; parallel Opus fixers edit one file each in isolated worktrees; consolidation cherry-picks the verified branches; a final Opus gate audits the integration diff.

Validated by pilot: 20 files, 33 dispatched findings, 0 regressions, 0 self-verification failures, 0 merge conflicts (hard-scope rule). See examples/ for real outputs.

Hard constraints — never violate

• No PRs. No issues. Ever. Output is a local branch + report. The user opens PRs themselves.
• Correctness & staleness only. Grammar, spelling, style, voice, formatting are out of scope — different tool.
• One file per fix agent. Cross-file fixes are deferred — reported in gate/cross-cutting.json for separate handling (see "Cross-cutting findings" below).
• Sonnet reviews, Opus fixes. Don't swap the model assignment.
• Branch overwrite protection. If the target branch exists with uncommitted manual edits, stop and ask before overwriting.
• Empty findings is a valid review result. Reviewers must not invent findings on clean files. The pilot had 5/20 clean files; over-firing would have wasted Opus budget on hallucinated work.

When to use

• "Review and fix the docs for X" / "audit our READMEs" / "find stale examples in docs/"
• Quarterly doc-correctness sweeps across a package or section
• After a large refactor that may have left docs referring to old APIs

Not for: spelling, prose quality, restructuring, new content. Use a different tool.

Inputs

Required from the user (or inferable from context):

1. File list — a path to a text file with one path per line, OR a glob. Paths relative to repo root.
2. Target branch name (default: docs-review-fix). Pipeline overwrites it unless it has uncommitted manual edits.

Optional:

• Job dir — defaults to $CLAUDE_JOB_DIR if set, else $(mktemp -d). Stores all artifacts (reviews, dispatch, fix-reports, final-gate report).

Pipeline

file list
   │
   ▼
[1. pre-filter] ── drop auto-generated READMEs ──► cross-cutting/auto-generated.json
   │
   ▼
[2. review]   N× Sonnet subagents, parallel, one per file
   │           emit reviews/<slug>.json
   ▼
[3. gate]     1× Opus subagent, repo-wide grep/read access
   │           emit gate/dispatch.json, gate/cross-cutting.json, gate/skipped.json
   ▼
[4. fix]      M× Opus subagents, parallel, one per qualifying file
   │           each in its own worktree (EnterWorktree), hard-scoped to one file
   │           emit fix-reports/<slug>.json
   ▼
[5. consolidate]  cherry-pick verified branches into target branch in main repo
   │
   ▼
[6. final gate]   1× Opus subagent, audits integration diff vs main
                  emit final-gate/report.md  (orchestrator writes — subagent's Write is blocked)
   │
   ▼
report + branch handed to user

Stage 1 — pre-filter

For each input path:

1. Auto-generated detection. Read the first 50 lines. If the file contains any of:

   • <!-- START TOKEN
   • auto-generated, Auto-generated, AUTO-GENERATED, DO NOT EDIT
   • @generated

   → exclude from review. Append to gate/cross-cutting.json under pattern auto-generated-readme so the user knows the generator needs fixing instead.

2. Slug derivation. Deterministic: replace / with __, strip .md extension.

   • packages/dataviews/README.md → packages__dataviews__README
   • docs/getting-started/tutorial.md → docs__getting-started__tutorial

   Use helpers/slug.sh <path>.

3. Validation. Drop paths that don't exist or aren't tracked by git.

Stage 2 — review (parallel Sonnet)

Dispatch one Sonnet subagent per surviving file using prompts/review.md. Each writes JSON to $JOB_DIR/reviews/<slug>.json matching schemas/review-finding.schema.json.

Load-bearing instructions in the prompt — do not edit out:

• "DO NOT report grammar/spelling/style/voice/formatting."
• "Empty findings array is FINE — DO NOT invent findings."

Post-validation per review: check the agent's report mentions the exact assigned output path (caught one pilot bug where Sonnet reported .md instead of .json). If mismatched, re-dispatch once.

Retry budget: 1 retry per file on failure, then mark failed and continue.

Stage 3 — gate (single Opus, max effort)

One Opus subagent reads every review JSON and has repo-wide grep/read access. Uses prompts/gate.md. Emits three files:

• gate/dispatch.json — validated medium+/high findings, partitioned by file (no file appears twice). Conforms to schemas/dispatch.schema.json.
• gate/cross-cutting.json — patterns spanning ≥2 files. Conforms to schemas/cross-cutting.schema.json. Reported only, not executed here.
• gate/skipped.json — files with no qualifying work, with invalidated/demoted findings recorded.

Load-bearing prompt directives:

• "Be SKEPTICAL. Most reviewer findings need verification against actual source."
• "Demote findings that are real but low-severity; record them in skipped.json."
• "Detect cross-file patterns — they belong in cross-cutting.json, not dispatch.json."

Stage 4 — fix (parallel Opus, worktree-per-file)

For each file in gate/dispatch.json:

1. Create a worktree. Use EnterWorktree with name=<slug> from a subagent dispatched for this file. Each fix agent runs in its own worktree.
2. Dispatch the fix agent using prompts/fix.md, passing the slug, file path, and the gate's findings array for that file.

Load-bearing prompt directives:

• "Edit ONLY the assigned file."
• "Any finding that requires editing other files: mark status requires-cross-file and SKIP it. Do not edit."
• "Re-verify each finding with its verification command after editing. On failure, roll back that single finding's edits — keep the others."

Each fix agent commits to a per-worktree branch docs-fix/<slug> with --no-verify (this pipeline only touches markdown; pre-commit hooks like lint-staged are infra friction here, not real checks) and writes fix-reports/<slug>.json matching schemas/fix-report.schema.json.

If every finding in a worktree fails verification: the branch is excluded from consolidation. Record in fix-report.

Stage 5 — consolidate

In the main repo:

1. Branch overwrite check. If <target-branch> exists locally:
   • If working tree clean and HEAD matches an earlier pipeline run → safe to overwrite.
   • If working tree has uncommitted edits OR there are commits not from this pipeline → STOP and ask the user. Show the branch state.
2. Create or reset <target-branch> from main (or current default branch).
3. Cherry-pick each qualifying docs-fix/<slug> branch's head commit.
4. Conflict during cherry-pick → record in final report and skip that file. (Should not happen given hard-scope rule; if it does, something violated the rule.)

Stage 6 — final gate

Dispatch one Opus subagent using prompts/final-gate.md. Subagent reads the diff of <target-branch>..main and audits each file against the dispatched findings + source.

Subagent's Write tool is blocked by the harness on the report path. Have the subagent return the report body as its final message. Orchestrator writes final-gate/report.md from that body.

Output:

• Verdict: ACCEPT / ACCEPT-WITH-NOTES / REJECT
• Per-file audit
• Pilot metrics (counts, resolution rate, regression count)
• Notes for human reviewer

If verdict is REJECT → delete <target-branch> and surface the report only. The user fixes whatever the gate flagged before re-running.

Final deliverable

Hand the user three things:

1. Branch name (<target-branch>)
2. final-gate/report.md — verdict + per-file audit
3. gate/cross-cutting.json — patterns the per-file pipeline can't fix (see "Cross-cutting findings" below)

Never open PRs. Never file issues. The user reviews the branch and opens the PR themselves.

Cross-cutting findings

The gate emits gate/cross-cutting.json for patterns spanning two or more files — URL hierarchy renames, org-name changes in external links, an API rename touching many examples, repeated JSON-syntax bugs in a code-block pattern. These are deliberately not auto-fixed by this pipeline.

Why deferred: the per-file pipeline's zero-conflict guarantee comes from the hard-scope rule (one file per agent, parallel). A coordinated edit touching N files for the same root cause needs the opposite orchestration: one sequential agent applying one recipe across many files. Mixing the two relaxes the guarantee.

What to do with cross-cutting.json: for v1, act on it manually. The file lists, per pattern: the affected files (from a verifying grep), an evidence field with the detection command, and a recommended_action. A typical flow:

1. Pick a pattern.
2. Run the evidence grep yourself to confirm the affected file list is current.
3. Apply the recommended_action — either by hand, or by dispatching one Opus call per file with hand-scoped instructions, on a separate branch from the per-file fixes.
4. Verify each file the same way the recommended_action describes.

For five patterns from a typical run, manual application is usually faster than building a separate sequential pipeline. If automating becomes worthwhile later, it would be a separate skill (sequential, single-agent, recipe-then-sweep) — not a mode of this one.

Files in this skill

File	Purpose
SKILL.md	This file — orchestration logic
prompts/review.md	Sonnet review subagent prompt
prompts/gate.md	Opus gate subagent prompt
prompts/fix.md	Opus fix subagent prompt
prompts/final-gate.md	Opus final-gate subagent prompt
helpers/slug.sh	Deterministic path → slug
helpers/pre-filter.sh	Detect auto-generated READMEs
schemas/*.schema.json	JSON Schemas for inter-stage artifacts
examples/	Real outputs from the pilot — golden samples

Pilot metrics (May 2026)

20 files reviewed → 5 clean, 15 with findings. Gate validated 33 / invalidated 1 / demoted ~8 / surfaced 5 cross-cutting patterns. 13 fix agents, 33/33 fixed, 0 regressions, 0 merge conflicts. Branch totaled 13 commits, +95/-110 lines. Final verdict: ACCEPT WITH NOTES.

Common mistakes

• Relaxing the hard-scope rule ("just this one cross-file fix") — destroys the zero-conflict guarantee. The fix agent should mark it requires-cross-file and let it land in gate/cross-cutting.json for separate handling.
• Dropping "Empty findings is FINE" from review prompt — reviewers will hallucinate work on clean files.
• Skipping the auto-generated pre-filter — burns Sonnet budget on files that regenerate from source.
• Letting the final-gate subagent Write the report — its Write is harness-blocked on that path. Subagent returns content; orchestrator writes.