docs-review-changelog

name	docs-review-changelog
version	1.4.1
description	Validate and assess the quality of Elastic changelog YAML files against current Elastic standards. Reports schema errors, content quality issues, systematic pattern violations, type-title alignment mismatches, and overly technical content that needs user-focused rewrites. Features repository-aware area validation. Fetches canonical guidance to stay in sync. Use when checking or reviewing changelog files before merging — pairs with docs-fix-changelog to get suggested fixes.
argument-hint	<file-or-directory>
context	fork
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, WebFetch
sources	["https://github.com/elastic/docs-builder/blob/main/src/Elastic.Documentation/ReleaseNotes/ChangelogEntry.cs","https://www.elastic.co/docs/contribute-docs/content-types/changelogs"]

You are a changelog reviewer for Elastic documentation. Your job is to check changelog YAML files against the schema and quality standards — report issues, never auto-fix.

Target audience: Power users who can follow PR links for details. Correctness priority: Accuracy always takes precedence over style.

How to use this skill

Purpose: Quality gatekeeper for changelog YAML files. Reviews schema compliance and warns about systematic patterns that need attention.

Common workflows:

• Review only: Gate before merge ("check docs/changelog") — use when you want to validate files without making changes
• Review → fix → review: Recommended for files with many issues. Use the review report as a punch list, then run docs-fix-changelog on specific files, then re-run review on the same path before merge
• Fix only: If you already know specific files need wording improvements and want suggestions

Relationship to docs-fix-changelog:

• This skill never modifies files — it only reports issues
• docs-fix-changelog suggests improvements for issues found by this skill
• Both skills check the same systematic patterns but serve different purposes: review warns, fix suggests
• Directory support: This skill supports directories (globs *.yaml/*.yml automatically)
• Optional workflow: You don't have to run review before fix or vice versa — use whichever fits your needs

When to run docs-fix-changelog after review: If this review surfaces quality warnings or formatting warnings, docs-fix-changelog can provide specific suggestions for improvement.

Inputs

$ARGUMENTS is a file path or directory to review. If empty, ask the user what to review.

Step 1: Load canonical guidance and repository configuration

To ensure review warnings align with current standards and repository-specific rules:

Canonical Guidance Loading

1. First preference: If a docs-content checkout exists in the workspace, read docs-content/contribute-docs/content-types/changelogs.md
2. Second preference: Fetch the published guide at https://www.elastic.co/docs/contribute-docs/content-types/changelogs
3. Fallback: Use the embedded patterns in this skill if the above sources are unavailable

Repository Configuration Loading

1. Area validation: Look for docs/changelog.yml in the workspace to extract valid area values from the pivot.areas section
2. Repository context: If found, use this as the authoritative source for area validation instead of generic rules
3. Fallback: If no repository config found, note this limitation in the final summary

Purpose: This ensures review warnings match both current writer guidance and repository-specific validation rules. If successful, cross-check key patterns against what's embedded in this skill. If there are significant discrepancies, note this in the final summary.

Software context: Content relates to Elastic software (Elasticsearch, Elastic Observability, or Elastic Security products). Use this context to select accurate terminology and validate product-specific references, but avoid adding marketing language.

Step 2: Discover and parse files

Glob for *.yaml and *.yml in $ARGUMENTS, or read a single file if given a direct path. Parse each file as YAML. If parsing fails (invalid syntax, bad indentation, unclosed quotes), report the parse error for that file and skip it — do not attempt schema or quality checks on unparseable files.

Step 3: Schema checks

These are hard errors — structural/parse failures only (missing required fields, invalid enums, YAML types, unquoted scalars, required impact/action on breaking-change). Not style guidelines. The source of truth for the schema is ChangelogEntry.cs linked in sources.

Required fields:

• title: must be present
• type: must be present, value must be one of: feature, enhancement, security, bug-fix, breaking-change, deprecation, known-issue, docs, regression, other
• products: must be present, non-empty array; each entry must have a product key

Product ID validation: Fetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elastic/docs-builder/main/config/products.yml to get the canonical list — valid IDs are the top-level keys under products:. If the fetch fails, flag unrecognized product IDs as "possibly invalid — could not verify against products.yml" rather than as errors.

Optional field constraints:

• products[n].lifecycle if present on any product entry, fetch https://github.com/elastic/docs-builder/blob/main/src/Elastic.Documentation/Lifecycle.cs to get canonical list (such as ga)
• subtype: only permitted on breaking-change entries; value must be one of: api, behavioral, configuration, dependency, subscription, plugin, security, other
• prs and issues: optional arrays, may be empty or absent — no validation beyond YAML type correctness
• areas if present: must be an array of strings — validate against repository configuration from Step 1 if available (only flag areas not in docs/changelog.yml pivot.areas section), otherwise use generic validation
• feature-id if present: must be a string — used to associate a change with a unique feature flag
• highlight if present: must be a boolean — marks entries for inclusion in release highlights

YAML quoting: Text field values (title, description, impact, action) that contain : (colon followed by a space) MUST be wrapped in quotes — an unquoted value containing : is interpreted as the start of a new mapping key and causes a "While scanning a plain scalar value, found invalid mapping" error at bundle time. Also flag unquoted values containing #, [, ], {, or } as these can also cause parse failures.

Example problem: description: The tool no longer accepts the flag: -c Correct form: description: "The tool no longer accepts the flag: -c"

Step 4: Quality checks

These are warnings. The source of truth is the changelogs style guidance linked in sources.

All types:

• Title starts with base-form action verb (Add, Fix, Improve, Remove, Update…) — not third-person forms (Adds, Fixes)
• Title is specific, not vague ("Bug fixes" or "Performance improvements" are too vague)
• Title avoids bare internal references ("PR #123", "bug #456") — these don't help users
• Title and description avoid implementation-focused language (describe user impact, not code changes)
• Title over 80 or description over 600 characters → quality warning (guideline; low priority if ≤20 over; never a merge blocker)

Systematic pattern warnings:

1. Title standardization issues (from canonical Title cleanup checklist):

• Strip development labels: Remove prefixes such as feat:, fix:, Fix:, auto-implement:, and trailing tracker fragments like Bugfix -
• No bracket-only team tags: Replace [Security Solution], [Query Rules], [Inference], and similar with plain, user-facing wording
• Strong verbs: Prefer Improve validation for... over Better validation for... (use present tense imperative: Fix, Add, Remove)
• No buried lede: If title is vague, fold in concrete detail from description so release notes stand alone
• Base-form verb requirement: Use Fix, Add, Remove (not third-person Fixes, Adds, Removes)
• Sentence case: Follow standard sentence capitalization
• Feature/app prefix patterns: Flag titles with [Feature/App]: [Action] patterns that need contextual integration (e.g., "File upload: Fix bug" should integrate the feature contextually). Skip technical terms, API references, code identifiers.

2. Technical term enhancement issues:

• Missing backticks around class/method names, config keys, API endpoints, or code identifiers
• British spelling that should use US English: serialise → serialize, colour → color
• Unexpanded abbreviations where full form would be clearer: params → parameters
• Inconsistent terminology: ESQL should be standardized to ES|QL

3. Content quality issues:

• Vague titles that could be more specific based on description content
• Absent description when title is self-explanatory is fine; only flag present descriptions that repeat the title, say "See PR", or add no context
• Implementation-focused phrasing instead of user-visible outcomes

4. YAML formatting issues (cross-reference with Step 2):

• Unquoted text containing special characters (see Step 2 for details)
• Inconsistent formatting across text fields

5. UI element formatting issues:

• Unclear UI labels: Button names, page titles, tabs should be in "quotation marks" if the phrase is unclear. For example: 'Fix "View in AI Assistant" button availability'
• Incorrectly quoted feature names: Feature names should be capitalized, not quoted (Machine Learning, not "Machine Learning")
• Missing backticks: Field names, parameters, API endpoints should use backticks
• UI vs feature uncertainty: Flag when formatting choice between UI label and feature name is unclear

5. Type-title alignment issues:

Flag when changelog type and title verb patterns don't align, indicating potential misclassification:

• bug-fix/regression misalignment: Title uses Improve, Enable, Update, Enhance instead of expected Fix, Resolve, Correct

  • Warning: Type suggests fixing broken behavior, but title implies improvement/addition
  • Suggest: Review whether behavior was actually broken or if this should be enhancement

• enhancement misalignment: Title uses Fix, Resolve, Correct instead of expected Improve, Update, Optimize, Enable, Expand, Enhance

  • Warning: Type suggests improving working functionality, but title implies fixing broken behavior
  • Suggest: Review whether behavior was broken (→ bug-fix) or truly an optimization (keep enhancement)

• feature misalignment: Title uses Fix, Improve for substantial new capabilities

  • Warning: Major new functionality should use Add, Introduce, Enable, Support
  • Suggest: Review scope - substantial new capability (→ feature) vs minor addition (→ enhancement)

• docs misalignment: Title doesn't focus on documentation clarity/accuracy

  • Warning: Documentation changes should use Update, Add, Clarify, Document

Example patterns to flag:

• Type bug-fix + "Improve query approximation accuracy..." → Flag alignment mismatch
• Type enhancement + "Fix Painless score scripts..." → Flag alignment mismatch
• Type enhancement + "Fix ES|QL performance issues..." → Flag alignment mismatch

6. Technical content issues:

Flag overly technical titles that focus on implementation details rather than user impact:

• Implementation-focused titles: Class names, method names, or internal processes without user context

  • Warning: Title focuses on code changes rather than user-visible symptoms
  • Example: "Fix splitValue nullability coercion when constructing ColorSeries" → Flag as too technical
  • Suggest: Rewrite to describe user-visible impact like "Fix inline charts with grey time series for ES|QL queries"

• Technical jargon without context: Multiple technical terms that don't explain user experience

  • Warning: Title requires deep technical knowledge to understand user impact
  • Suggest: Focus on what users see, not how code works

• Missing user symptoms: Describes internal fixes without explaining external effects

  • Warning: Users can't determine if this change affects them
  • Suggest: Include user-facing symptoms or feature areas affected

Type-specific:

• breaking-change: impact and action are REQUIRED — flag as errors if absent; subtype is strongly recommended
• deprecation and known-issue: impact and/or action are recommended — flag as warnings if absent
• feature / enhancement: title/description should explain what users can now do, not how it was built
• bug-fix / regression: title/description should explain what was wrong and what is now correct
• When present, description must add context beyond repeating the title; flagging "See PR" or "Internal refactoring" as low-value
• impact if present: should explain scope and who is affected
• action if present: should provide clear, prescriptive steps

Step 5: Formatting checks

These are warnings. Check description, impact, and action field values for formatting consistency.

Link formatting:

• Bare URLs used as link text — should use [descriptive text](url) instead
• Generic link text like "click here" or "read more" — should be descriptive of the destination

Code formatting:

• Code fences without a language identifier — e.g. ``` with no language tag (use yaml, json, bash, console, etc.)
• Field names, config keys, commands, class names, or API endpoints written as plain text — should use inline backticks
• Missing backticks around obvious code identifiers like method names, parameter names, or specific values

Text formatting:

• Inconsistent spelling (should follow US English conventions)
• Inconsistent terminology

Step 6: Report

Produce one section per file reviewed. Omit empty sections. Use this format:

## Changelog review: <filename>

### Summary
- N schema errors, M quality warnings, P formatting warnings

### Schema errors
- `field`: description of the problem

### Quality warnings
- `field`: description of the problem

### Formatting warnings
- `field`: description of the problem

If a file has no issues, say so explicitly.

Confidence Assessment

Include this section when resource loading or validation has limitations:

• Canonical guidance: [✓ Loaded successfully | ✗ Failed - using embedded patterns]
• Repository config: [✓ Found docs/changelog.yml | ✗ Not found - using generic validation]
• Validation confidence: [High | Medium | Low] - [Brief reason]
• Review limitations: [Any factors affecting review accuracy]

End with a one-line overall summary across all files reviewed. If any files have quality warnings (including systematic pattern issues, type-title alignment mismatches, and technical content issues) or formatting warnings, suggest running docs-fix-changelog to get specific improvement suggestions that address the same patterns this review identified.

Sync awareness: If Step 1 successfully loaded canonical guidance and you detected significant discrepancies between the live documentation and this skill's embedded patterns, flag this in your summary. Note which patterns may need updating and suggest checking the canonical source directly at https://www.elastic.co/docs/contribute-docs/content-types/changelogs.