doc-rigor-verify

name	doc-rigor-verify
description	Use when writing or updating documentation that makes API claims, includes command examples, or states platform-specific behavior. Write-then-verify pipeline where a fresh agent checks accuracy against code reality with zero confirmation bias.
user-invocable	true

Doc Rigor Verify

An end-to-end documentation pipeline that composes /doc-rigor (write) and /doc-verify (verify) into a single invocation with enforced agent isolation. The writer and verifier never share context — the verifier only sees the code and whatever the writer produced, not what the writer intended.

When to Use

• After writing or modifying code that needs documentation
• When you want both doc generation and accuracy checking in one pass
• As a replacement for manually running /doc-rigor then /doc-verify
• Before merging branches that touch public APIs or complex internals

When NOT to Use

• Only writing docs (no verification needed) — use /doc-rigor directly
• Only verifying existing docs (no writing needed) — use /doc-verify directly
• Reviewing code logic — use /review-dispatch
• Verifying dist-sys claims — use /dist-sys-auditor

---

Invocation

/doc-rigor-verify [files]

• With no argument: targets recently changed files (unstaged + staged)
• With file paths: targets those specific files
• With a directory: targets all .rs files in that directory

Flags

Flag	Effect
--code-only	Passed to the verify phase: skip external claim verification
--strict	Passed to the verify phase: promote all WARNs to BLOCKs
--summary	Passed to the verify phase: output only the summary table
--rigor-only	Run only the doc-rigor phase (equivalent to /doc-rigor)
--verify-only	Run only the doc-verify phase (equivalent to /doc-verify)

---

Agent Isolation — Non-Negotiable

This skill enforces a hard separation between writing and verifying:

Invoking Agent (orchestrator)
    |
    |---> Agent 1: Doc-Rigor Writer   (writes/improves docs)
    |         |
    |    [docs are written to files]
    |
    +---> Agent 2: Doc-Verify Checker  (verifies docs against code)
              |
         [verification report]

• Agent 1 (doc-rigor) runs as a Task tool subagent with full edit access. It reads the code, understands intent, and writes documentation.
• Agent 2 (doc-verify) runs as a separate Task tool subagent with zero knowledge of what Agent 1 intended. It receives only the file contents (code + docs as they exist on disk after Agent 1's edits) and verifies every claim against code reality.

Why: The verifier must not know what the writer meant to say — only what they did say. This eliminates confirmation bias. A writer who knows they intended "returns None on empty" won't catch that the code actually panics. A fresh verifier will.

Never inline both phases in the same agent context. Always use two separate Task tool agents.

---

Phase 1: Scope Resolution (Invoking Agent)

The invoking agent performs these steps before launching subagents:

1. Identify Target Files

• If files are specified: use those
• If no argument: run git diff --name-only HEAD and git diff --cached --name-only to find recently changed .rs files
• Filter to .rs files only

2. Read File Contents

• Read each target file in full
• Read adjacent module files (siblings in the same directory) for context

3. Parse Flags

Extract any flags from the invocation and route them to the appropriate phase.

4. Check for References

If the project has references/documentation-style.md, read it — it will be passed to the doc-rigor agent as a style reference.

---

Phase 2: Doc-Rigor Agent (Writer)

Launch 1 agent using the Task tool.

Writer Agent Prompt

You are a documentation specialist. Your job is to write and improve
documentation for Rust code following the doc-rigor methodology.

## Target Files

{FULL_FILE_CONTENTS}

## Adjacent Context (for reference, do NOT edit these)

{ADJACENT_FILE_CONTENTS}

{STYLE_REFERENCE — include only if references/documentation-style.md exists}

## Your Task

Produce documentation that lets a new reader grok the code without reading
every line. Treat comments as first-class: explain intent, invariants, and
trade-offs, not syntax.

### Workflow

1. **Read for intent** — Identify the core problem, invariants, and boundaries
   of each module/type/function. Mark non-obvious logic, algorithms, and design
   decisions that need explanation.

2. **Draft a documentation map** — Decide which scopes need docs: module-level,
   type-level, function-level, or inline. Prefer fewer, richer comments over
   many shallow ones.

3. **Write documentation in layers**:
   - Module-level docs: purpose, invariants, high-level algorithm, references.
   - Type/function docs: guarantees, preconditions, side effects, errors, complexity.
   - Inline comments only for local, tricky reasoning (why now, why this order,
     why this bound).

4. **Enforce rigor**:
   - Remove comments that restate code or obvious control flow.
   - Check for consistency with code and tests.
   - Call out any missing context you cannot infer.

### Comment Content Checklist

Every doc you write should cover the applicable items:

- Problem statement and scope
- Invariants and safety/soundness rules
- Algorithm overview with key steps and why they matter
- Design trade-offs (why this approach vs alternatives)
- Edge cases and failure modes
- Complexity or performance constraints when relevant
- Concrete examples when behavior is subtle
- Runnable command examples only when crate names, package flags, and feature
  flags have been verified against the current workspace
- Units, time domains, and ordering assumptions when values are easy to misread
  (for example seconds vs ticks, per-step vs cumulative advance)
- Platform scope when behavior is Unix-only, Windows-only, or relies on path
  or byte-semantics assumptions
- The exact API, trait, or observation path when docs describe which component
  performs a lookup or emits an observation

### Rust-Specific Guidance

- Use `///` for item docs and `//!` for module docs
- For unsafe code, add a `# Safety` section describing required invariants
- Include `# Examples` sections in public APIs if usage is non-obvious

### Rules

- Edit the target files directly using the Edit tool
- Do NOT edit adjacent context files
- Do NOT add tracking IDs, issue references, or external tracker info in comments
- Do NOT add version suffixes, deprecated annotations, or compatibility shims
- Focus on WHY, not WHAT — don't restate what the code already says
- Be factually precise — every claim in a doc comment must be true
- Never overstate API surface usage; if only some observations flow through a
  trait or helper, name the exact path instead of saying "all" or "always"

### Output

After editing all files, provide a summary listing:
- Files edited
- Types of docs added/improved (module, type, function, inline)
- Any gaps you could not fill due to missing context

Collecting Writer Results

When the writer agent completes:

1. Capture its summary (files edited, docs added, gaps noted)
2. Re-read the target files from disk — the writer has edited them, and the verifier needs the updated contents, not the pre-edit versions
3. Also re-read adjacent module files (they were not edited but provide context for verification)

---

Phase 3: Doc-Verify Agent (Verifier)

Launch 1 agent using the Task tool. This agent receives only the current file contents (post-edit) and verification instructions. It has zero context about what the writer intended.

Verifier Agent Prompt

You are a documentation verification specialist. Your job is to verify that
every claim in the documentation is factually correct against what the code
actually does and what external sources actually say. You have ZERO knowledge
of the author's intent — you can only check what is written against what the
code does. Trust nothing, verify everything.

## Target Files (verify docs in these)

{UPDATED_FULL_FILE_CONTENTS}

## Adjacent Context (for cross-reference only)

{ADJACENT_FILE_CONTENTS}

{FLAGS — e.g., --code-only, --strict, --summary}

## Step A: Extract All Testable Claims

Read every doc comment in the target files. Extract every testable claim —
any statement that can be verified as true or false against the code or an
external source.

Categorize each claim:

| Category | What to look for |
|----------|------------------|
| **Behavioral** | "this function returns X when Y", "panics if Z", "calls W internally" |
| **Invariant** | "this value is always positive", "the list is sorted", "monotonically increasing" |
| **Type/Structural** | "contains N fields", "implements trait T", "generic over X" |
| **Count** | "there are N variants", "supports M strategies", "N phases" |
| **Relationship** | "A calls B", "X depends on Y", "Z wraps W" |
| **Precondition/Postcondition** | "caller must ensure X", "on return, Y holds" |
| **Complexity** | "O(n log n)", "amortized O(1)", "linear in the number of X" |
| **Performance** | "zero-copy", "no allocation", "lock-free", "wait-free" |
| **Safety** | "safe because X", "unsafe requires Y", "SAFETY: Z" |
| **Operational Example** | cargo commands, feature flags, CLI invocations, package names |
| **Unit/Time Domain** | seconds vs ticks, absolute vs cumulative time, ordering assumptions |
| **Platform Scope** | Unix-only, Windows-only, filesystem/path assumptions |
| **External** | "uses algorithm from [paper]", "follows RFC N", "compatible with library X" |
| **Negative** | "does NOT do X", "never Y", "no Z" |

For each claim, record:
- Location: file:line
- Category: from the table above
- Claim text: the exact statement (quoted)
- Testable assertion: rewrite as a concrete true/false statement

## Step B: Verify Code-Level Claims

Always perform these high-risk drift checks when they appear in docs:

- Verify command examples against current crate names, package flags, and
  feature gates in `Cargo.toml`
- Verify units and time-domain wording against the implementation and tests
- Verify platform-specific claims against `cfg` gates, path handling, and
  safety comments
- Verify trait/API attribution claims against the exact call path in code

For each claim category, verify against the actual code:

**Behavioral**: Trace the code path. Does the function actually return X when Y?
Does it actually panic if Z? Read the implementation, not just the signature.

**Invariant**: Check constructors, mutation methods, and all code paths that
touch the value. Is the invariant enforced everywhere, or only in some paths?

**Type/Structural**: Count the actual fields, variants, or implementations.
Open the struct/enum definition and count.

**Count**: Count the actual items. Off-by-one counts are a WARN, off-by-more
is a BLOCK.

**Relationship**: Verify call graphs. Does A actually call B? Check imports
and usage.

**Precondition/Postcondition**: Check if the precondition is enforced
(assert/debug_assert) or just documented. Check if the postcondition actually
holds by reading the return paths.

**Complexity**: Verify the algorithm matches the claimed complexity. Count
nested loops, check data structure operations.

**Performance**: "Zero-copy" — check for .clone(), .to_vec(), .to_string().
"No allocation" — check for Vec::new(), Box::new(), String::from().
"Lock-free" — check for Mutex, RwLock.

**Safety**: For unsafe blocks, verify the stated safety justification actually
holds.

**Negative**: "Never panics" — check for .unwrap(), .expect(), indexing.
"No allocation" — check for heap allocations. Verify the absence of what
the doc says is absent.

## Step C: Identify External Claims

Extract all references to named algorithms, academic papers, libraries,
standards/RFCs, cryptographic properties, or complexity claims from literature.

## Step D: Verify External Claims

(Skip this step if --code-only flag is active.)

For claims requiring verification, use WebFetch to find authoritative sources.
Record results as: Confirmed, Contradicted (BLOCK), Unverifiable (WARN),
or Partially correct (WARN).

## Step E: Produce Findings

### Severity Classification

**BLOCK — Must Fix**:
- Factually wrong claim (code does X, doc says Y)
- Incorrect safety comment
- False external claim
- Count wrong by more than 1
- Behavioral claim opposite of reality

**WARN — Should Fix**:
- Misleading claim (technically true but creates false impression)
- Stale count (off by 1)
- Stale structural claim
- Unverifiable external claim
- Ambiguous invariant claim
- Precondition documented but not enforced

**INFO — Consider Fixing**:
- Imprecise language
- Slightly stale wording
- Missing doc where one would help

(If --strict flag is active, promote all WARNs to BLOCKs.)

### Output Format

Return this structured report:

# Documentation Verification Report

## Summary

| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Files verified | N |
| Claims extracted | N |
| Verified correct | N |
| BLOCK | N |
| WARN | N |
| INFO | N |

**Verdict**: PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL

(FAIL if any BLOCKs exist.)

## Findings

| # | Severity | File:Line | Category | Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|----------|-----------|----------|-------|---------|----------|

## Detailed Findings

### BLOCK-N: [title]
- Location: file:line
- Claim: "[quoted]"
- Reality: [what the code actually does]
- Evidence: [specific code reference]
- Suggested fix: [concrete wording correction]

### WARN-N: [title]
(same format)

## External Claims Verification

| # | Claim | Source Checked | Result | Notes |
|---|-------|---------------|--------|-------|

## Verification Coverage

| File | Claims Found | Verified | BLOCK | WARN | INFO |
|------|-------------|----------|-------|------|------|

---

Phase 4: Presentation (Invoking Agent)

After both agents complete, present a combined report to the user:

1. Writer Summary

Briefly state what the doc-rigor agent did:

• Which files were edited
• What types of documentation were added or improved
• Any gaps the writer noted

2. Verification Report

Present the doc-verify agent's findings directly. Do not filter or soften them.

• If verdict is FAIL: Highlight all BLOCKs at the top. Emphasize that the documentation edits contain factual errors that must be corrected.
• If verdict is PASS WITH WARNINGS: Note warnings that should be addressed.
• If verdict is PASS: Confirm that all documentation claims verified against code reality.

3. Next Steps

Based on the verification result:

• FAIL: Suggest running /execute-review-findings to fix BLOCKs, then re-running /doc-verify to confirm fixes.
• PASS WITH WARNINGS: List the WARNs as follow-up items.
• PASS: Documentation is ready.

---

Common Drift Caught by This Pipeline

The write-then-verify pattern is especially good at catching:

• Writer assumed intent, not reality: The writer reads a function named try_get and documents "returns None on failure" — but the code actually panics. The verifier catches this because it traces the actual code path.
• Stale counts: The writer copies a count from module docs without recounting. The verifier counts the actual items.
• Overstated guarantees: The writer documents "lock-free" based on the design intent, but the implementation uses a Mutex. The verifier checks for actual lock usage.
• Safety invariant gaps: The writer documents a safety contract, but the verifier finds code paths that violate it.

---

Related Skills

• /doc-rigor — the writing half of this pipeline, used standalone
• /doc-verify — the verification half of this pipeline, used standalone
• /execute-review-findings — implements fixes for BLOCK findings
• /review-dispatch — multi-lens code review (broader than docs)
• /dist-sys-auditor — specialized for distributed systems claims