review-doc-consistency

name

review-doc-consistency

description

Documentation consistency reviewer that checks alignment between code implementation and documentation. Use when user requests reviewing documentation vs code consistency, checking if README/docs are outdated, verifying API documentation accuracy. Applicable for (1) reviewing README vs implementation consistency (2) checking if docs/ directory content is outdated (3) verifying API/config documentation accuracy (4) generating documentation consistency reports. Trigger words include doc review, documentation consistency, check outdated docs, verify docs.

Documentation Consistency Reviewer

Goal

Systematically identify all "outdated" or "inconsistent with implementation" descriptions in README + docs/, outputting ≥30 issue items.

Core Principles

1. Code is truth - When documentation conflicts with code, source code/config/contract files are authoritative
2. Evidence before conclusions - Each issue must cite code/config location as evidence
3. Contracts first - OpenAPI/proto/schema/TS types are treated as SSOT (Single Source of Truth)
4. Security default tightening - Security-related inconsistencies are prioritized as high severity

Review Process

1. Document Enumeration

# Scan scope
- README.md (root directory)
- docs/**/*.md (all documentation)
- Contract files: OpenAPI/proto/GraphQL schema/TS types

2. Document-by-Document Review

For each document:

1. List key claims/commitments/configs/interface items
2. Search for corresponding implementation in code
3. Compare differences: missing/renamed/behavior mismatch/default value mismatch
4. Record issues using template

3. Cross-Check

• Reverse check documentation from contract files
• Reverse check documentation from config files

See checklist.md for detailed review checklist.

Severity Levels

Level	Definition	Example
P0	Security issue/serious misleading	Docs say sandbox enabled but code doesn't enable it
P1	Core functionality inconsistency	Following docs leads to failure
P2	Incomplete examples/naming inconsistency	Doesn't directly block usage
P3	Wording/formatting/link minor issues	Doesn't affect functionality
Pending Evidence	Suspicious but insufficient evidence	Needs further investigation

Output Format

See output-format.md for detailed templates.

Single Issue Item

### [Title]
- **Severity**: P0/P1/P2/P3/Pending Evidence
- **Location**: `<file_path>:<line_number>`
- **Evidence**:
  - Documentation: [quote]
  - Code: [quote]
- **Impact**: [Misleading consequences]
- **Suggestion**: [Minimal fix]
- **Related Principle**: Code is truth/Contracts first/Security default tightening/...

Review Conclusion

## Review Conclusion
- **Verdict**: Pass/Conditional Pass/Fail
- **Summary**: P0:x P1:x P2:x P3:x Pending:x
- **Fix Priority**: P0 → P1 → P2 → P3

Multi-Agent Parallel

For acceleration, split by following dimensions for parallel multi-agent execution:

1. By document type - One agent each for README, API docs, development guide
2. By module - One agent per functional module's documentation
3. By check direction - One checks docs against code, another checks code against docs

Deduplication and unified severity rating needed when aggregating.

Execution

After review completion, output doc-consistency.md report file, and also output doc-consistency.json (structured issue list for aggregation/deduplication/statistics).