review-docs-pr

name	review-docs-pr
description	Reviews documentation pull requests for the Warp docs repository. Checks for broken links, style guide compliance, content quality, AEO/source-data fit, and Astro Starlight structure. Use when reviewing documentation PRs or when you need to provide feedback on markdown documentation changes.

Review Documentation PR

This skill reviews documentation pull requests for the Warp docs repository.

Usage

Use this skill when reviewing documentation changes in PRs. The skill will:

• Check for potential broken links
• Verify style guide compliance
• Review content quality
• Review AEO/source-data fit for docs changes that target search or answer-engine visibility
• Check Astro Starlight structure integrity

Review Instructions

Review this documentation PR for the docs repository.

Focus on:

1. Broken links: Check for potential broken internal links (relative paths, cross-space links). You can run the broken link checker at python3 .agents/skills/check_for_broken_links/check_links.py --internal-only if helpful.
2. Style guide compliance: Reference AGENTS.md for documentation standards (voice, formatting, terminology).
3. Content quality: Check for clarity, accuracy, proper frontmatter, and appropriate use of headers/lists.
4. Code snippets: Verify that any code examples, commands, or configuration snippets are correct and will work as documented. If you're unsure about technical details, use the answer_question skill to verify against the docs or search the source code.
5. Astro Starlight structure: Verify src/sidebar.ts updates if files were added, moved, or renamed, and that redirects are added to vercel.json (redirects) when needed.
6. AEO/source-data fit: For docs changes that target AEO, SEO, Peec recommendations, AI search prompts, or content gaps, check whether the PR has a clear source-data rationale, uses query vocabulary naturally, avoids junk-drawer coverage, and updates or links existing docs instead of creating duplicative content.

Provide actionable, constructive feedback. Focus on documentation quality issues, not code bugs.

Severity Labels (Required)

Every comment body MUST begin with one of:

• 🚨 [CRITICAL] — Broken links, incorrect commands/code, factually wrong information that could confuse users
• ⚠️ [IMPORTANT] — Style guide violations, missing redirects, structural issues
• 💡 [SUGGESTION] — Improvements to clarity, wording, or structure
• 🧹 [NIT] — Typos, minor formatting (ONLY if providing a suggestion block)

Using answer_question for verification

If you encounter:

• Unclear or potentially incorrect technical information
• Commands or code examples you want to verify
• Feature descriptions that seem outdated or inaccurate
• Questions about how something actually works

Use the answer_question skill to search the documentation and source code for authoritative information before making your review comment.

AEO review guidance

For AEO-driven docs PRs, review the diff through these questions:

• Source rationale - Is it clear which Peec prompt, search-query cluster, recommendation, or content gap motivated the change? If not, ask for the source signal or suggest narrowing the scope.
• Vocabulary translation - Does the draft preserve high-intent search terms where useful while translating awkward source-data language into natural docs language?
• Reader value - Would the page help a developer complete or understand a real workflow, or is it collecting loosely related keywords?
• Terminology and UI surfaces - Are product names, settings paths, panel names, and navigation labels consistent with AGENTS.md, .agents/references/terminology.md, and the actual UI?
• Scannability - Are dense procedures broken into numbered steps, bullets, or concise subsections with expected outcomes?
• Duplication risk - Should the content update an existing page, link to an existing page, or be merged with related content instead of living as a new standalone doc?

When the issue is a judgment call, prefer a 💡 [SUGGESTION] comment that explains the tradeoff rather than blocking the PR.

Output Format

Create a review.json file with the following structure:

{
  "summary": "High-level overview of the changes and verdict",
  "comments": [
    {
      "path": "path/to/file.md",
      "line": 42,
      "side": "RIGHT",
      "body": "Your feedback here"
    }
  ]
}

Summary Requirements

The summary should:

• Start with a brief (2-3 sentence) overview of what the PR changes and your assessment
• Include issue counts: "Found: X critical, Y important, Z suggestions, N nits"
• End with final recommendation: "Approve", "Approve with nits", or "Request changes"

Keep the tone helpful and constructive. The summary can mention positive aspects (e.g., "good improvements to clarity") alongside concerns.

Comment Format

Each comment should:

• Reference a specific line in a changed file
• Be actionable and constructive
• Use side: "RIGHT" for new/added lines (the new content after changes) - use this in most cases
• Use side: "LEFT" only when commenting on deleted/old lines (the content before changes)
• Focus on the diff, not unchanged code
• Keep comment spans ≤10 lines (i.e., line - start_line <= 10) for easier review
• Use single-line comments for specific issues (typos, broken links); use multi-line spans when the issue or suggestion requires multiple lines of context

Using GitHub Suggestion Syntax

When you have a specific fix or improvement, use GitHub's suggestion syntax in your comment body. This allows the author to apply your suggestion with one click.

Use suggestions for:

• Fixing typos or grammar
• Correcting commands or code snippets
• Improving wording or phrasing
• Fixing broken links
• Correcting terminology to match the style guide

If the changes look good with no major issues, indicate approval in the summary. For minor issues, suggest improvements but still recommend approval. Only request changes if there are significant problems that need to be fixed before merge.

Validation

After creating review.json:

• Validate JSON with jq . review.json - if this fails, fix the JSON syntax and try again
• Verify all paths exist in the PR diff and match the changed files
• Check that line numbers are within the changed files and reference lines that were actually modified
• Ensure comment spans don't exceed 10 lines

Signal logging

After creating and validating review.json (immediately after the Validation section above), emit a summary record for the improve-drafting-skills outer loop. Do this before any step that submits or hands off the review — the marker must appear in the Oz run output regardless of how the review is ultimately published. Apply only when reviewing an agent-authored PR (branch created by a drafting skill, or commit author is [e-mail]).

1. Count comments in review.json by severity label (🚨 [CRITICAL], ⚠️ [IMPORTANT], 💡 [SUGGESTION], 🧹 [NIT]).
2. Identify the top 3 issue categories by frequency (use the check name if available from style lint output, or infer a short category from the comment body).
3. Determine the skill used from the PR branch name or PR description if available.
4. Include the following structured marker in your text response (write it as part of your agent message, not via a shell echo command). This ensures it appears as a TextContentBlock in the conversation, where oz run get --conversation can reliably retrieve it:

   [SIGNAL:pr-review] {"date":"YYYY-MM-DD","pr":"NNN","branch":"branch-name","skill_used":"draft_feature_doc","verdict":"Request changes","critical":N,"important":N,"suggestions":N,"nits":N,"top_categories":["category (N)","category (N)","category (N)"]}
   

The improve-drafting-skills outer loop reads this signal from the conversation via oz run get --conversation, scanning assistant TextContentBlock messages for the marker. No git operations are required.