ds-doc-quality-review

name	ds-doc-quality-review
description	Run a strict review of documentation quality — accuracy against the code, broken links and stale counts, coverage gaps, and bloat. Reports a findings list by default; `--fix` applies the mechanical, unambiguous fixes.
disable-model-invocation	true

When invoked, audit the documentation in scope against one governing principle: documentation earns its length. Readers skim; they don't read. Every sentence that doesn't help someone do something is noise that hides the sentences that do. So hunt two failures with equal energy — docs that are wrong (drifted from the code) and docs that are bloated (true, but nobody will read them). Be ambitious about cutting: the best fix is often to delete three paragraphs, not to polish them.

Report-only by default — the output is a prioritized list of what needs fixing, no edits unless --fix is passed. Inline code comments are out of scope; /ds-comment-review owns comment discipline.

Arguments

• Treat positional args as scope (files, directories, globs). With no scope, review the documentation changed on the current branch (README, docs/, *.md, and the like).
• --full → review all documentation in the repo instead of just what changed on the branch. Explicit positional scope still wins; --full only replaces the no-scope default.
• Freeform scope ("the whole docs/ tree", "the README") is interpreted reasonably.
• --fix → after reporting, apply the findings whose fix is mechanical and unambiguous — a fixable dead link, a stale count, a clearly-drifted line, a bloat-cut that loses no information; leave anything resting on a judgment call (a rewrite, a restructure, a coverage gap to fill) as report-only. After applying, re-run any build/test/lint check already in the loop and revert any fix that breaks it — or that touched more than the intended mechanical edit. Close with a summary of what was applied and what was left.

What to check

Verify mechanically wherever you can — resolve links against the filesystem, count the things a doc claims to count, run example commands when they're safe. Do not eyeball what you can confirm.

1. Accuracy & drift (highest priority). Docs that contradict the code are worse than missing docs.

• Commands, flags, paths, signatures, env vars, and outputs that no longer match the code.
• Examples and snippets that wouldn't run as written.
• Stale version numbers, renamed or removed things still referenced, text copied from an older state.

2. Integrity.

• Broken links — internal (file + anchor), cross-references, images. Resolve them; don't trust them.
• Wrong counts and numbers — "23 commands", table rows, list lengths — recount against reality.
• Duplicated or contradictory statements across files (the same thing documented two ways that have since diverged).

3. Coverage gaps.

• The thing a new reader needs first — how to install, run, and do the one core task — missing or buried below the fold.
• Public surface (entry points, config, API, flags) that ships undocumented.
• Non-obvious behavior, gotchas, and required setup that only the author knows.
• Do not demand docs for the obvious. Flag a gap only where a competent reader would actually get stuck.

4. Bloat (the headline failure).

• Walls of text where a list, a table, or three sentences would carry the same payload.
• Padding: throat-clearing intros, restating the obvious, marketing adjectives, "as you can see", hedging.
• Redundancy: the same point made three times, or duplicated across docs that now must be maintained in lockstep.
• Sections that exist for completeness but nobody reads — reference dumps that belong next to the code, changelogs nobody updates.
• Prefer deletion to rewriting. Ask of each section: if this were gone, would a reader miss it?

5. Clarity & wording.

• Buried lede — the key point arriving in paragraph three.
• Undefined jargon, vague nouns ("the system handles this"), ambiguous antecedents.
• Where the doc is too terse: a step that assumes context the reader lacks, an example that needs one line of "why". This is the rare case where more words help — call it out specifically so it isn't lost among the cut-this findings.

Output

A prioritized findings list, in this order:

1. Accuracy / drift (doc contradicts code)
2. Broken links and wrong counts
3. Missing documentation a reader genuinely needs
4. Bloat — what to cut
5. Clarity and wording (including the rare "needs more")

For each finding:

• Anchor to file:line (or file#section).
• State the problem in one line, then the suggested fix — and when the fix is "cut it", say so plainly, naming what to cut.
• For drift, name both sides: what the doc says and what the code actually does.

Rules:

• Don't flood the list with cosmetic nits when there are real accuracy or coverage problems. A short high-conviction list beats a long pedantic one.
• Judge length against payload, not a word count. A long doc that's all signal is fine; a short doc that's all padding is not.
• Be direct about bloat. "This section can be deleted" is more useful than "this could be tightened".
• With --fix, additionally summarize what was applied vs. left (mechanics in Arguments).