verify-content

name	verify-content
description	Run comprehensive quality verification on workshop or demo content using Red Hat standards and validation agents.

---

context: fork model: sonnet hooks: PreToolUse: - .claude/hooks/validate-paths.sh

Content Verification Skill

Verify workshop or demo content against Red Hat quality standards, style guidelines, technical accuracy, and accessibility requirements.

When to Use

Use this skill when you want to:

• Verify workshop content before publishing
• Check demo modules for quality and completeness
• Validate technical accuracy and Red Hat style compliance
• Review content for accessibility standards
• Get actionable feedback on content improvements

Don't use this for:

• Creating new content → use /create-lab or /create-demo
• Converting between formats → use /blog-generate

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Content Type

Q: What type of content are you verifying?

Options:

1. Workshop module (hands-on lab content)
2. Demo module (presenter-led demonstration)
3. Multiple files (specify pattern)

Step 2: Locate Content

For single file:

• Provide file path (e.g., content/modules/ROOT/pages/module-01-install-aap.adoc)

For multiple files:

• Provide glob pattern (e.g., content/modules/ROOT/pages/*.adoc)
• Or directory path (e.g., content/modules/ROOT/pages/)

Step 3: Run Verification Agents

I'll run comprehensive verification using these validation frameworks:

For Workshop Content:

1. enhanced_verification_workshop.txt - Overall quality assessment
2. redhat_style_guide_validation.txt - Red Hat style compliance
3. verify_workshop_structure.txt - Workshop structure validation
4. verify_technical_accuracy_workshop.txt - Technical accuracy
5. verify_accessibility_compliance_workshop.txt - Accessibility standards
6. verify_content_quality.txt - General content quality

For Demo Content:

1. enhanced_verification_demo.txt - Overall demo quality
2. redhat_style_guide_validation.txt - Red Hat style compliance
3. verify_technical_accuracy_demo.txt - Demo technical accuracy
4. verify_accessibility_compliance_demo.txt - Accessibility standards
5. verify_content_quality.txt - General content quality

Step 4: Present Results

I'll provide:

Summary Table:

• Clean table with Issue, Priority, and Files columns
• No time estimates or fix duration
• Clear priority levels (Critical, High, Medium, Low)

Strengths Section:

• What your content does exceptionally well
• Positive highlights to reinforce good practices
• Recognition of quality work

Detailed Breakdown (optional, on request):

• Specific file locations and line numbers
• Before/after examples
• Implementation steps
• How to fix each issue

Step 5: Offer Fixes (Optional)

After showing results, I can:

• Apply fixes automatically (with your approval)
• Provide code snippets for manual fixes
• Explain why each change improves quality

Example Usage

Example 1: Verify Single Workshop Module

User: /verify-content

Skill: What type of content are you verifying?
User: Workshop module

Skill: File path?
User: content/modules/ROOT/pages/module-01-install-aap.adoc

[Runs all workshop verification agents]

Skill:
📊 Summary Table of All Issues
┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing verification commands    │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incorrect product name "OCP"     │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing alt text for images      │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incomplete troubleshooting       │ High     │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing learning outcomes        │ High     │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Commands lack expected output    │ Medium   │ 1 file    │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

---

✅ Strengths Worth Highlighting

Your module excels in these areas:

1. Clear Step-by-Step Instructions - Installation steps are well-structured and easy to follow
2. Proper AsciiDoc Formatting - Code blocks and syntax highlighting are correctly implemented
3. Strong Technical Content - Accurate AAP installation procedures for OpenShift

Would you like detailed breakdown of specific issues? [Yes/No]

Example 2: Verify All Modules in Workshop

User: Verify all my workshop modules

Skill: Content location?
User: content/modules/ROOT/pages/

[Scans and finds 3 modules + index/overview]

Skill: Found 5 files:
- index.adoc
- 01-overview.adoc
- 02-details.adoc
- module-01-install-aap.adoc
- module-02-configure-aap.adoc

Verify all? [Yes/Select specific files]

User: Yes

[Runs verification on all files]

Skill:
📊 Summary Table of All Issues
┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Inconsistent heading styles      │ Critical │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing alt text for images      │ Critical │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Title case headings              │ High     │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing Red Hat product names    │ High     │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incomplete verification commands │ Medium   │ 2 files   │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

---

✅ Strengths Worth Highlighting

Your workshop excels in these areas:

1. Excellent Business Context - Outstanding scenario in overview addressing real organizational challenges
2. Progressive Learning Flow - Well-structured progression from basic to advanced concepts
3. Strong Technical Depth - Comprehensive AAP configuration coverage across modules
4. Good Documentation Structure - Clear separation of overview, details, and hands-on modules

Would you like detailed breakdown for specific files? [Yes/No]

Verification Standards

Every verification includes:

Red Hat Style Guide:

• ✓ Sentence case headlines
• ✓ Official Red Hat product names
• ✓ No prohibited terms (whitelist/blacklist, etc.)
• ✓ Proper hyphenation and formatting
• ✓ Serial comma usage

Technical Accuracy:

• ✓ Valid commands for current versions
• ✓ Correct syntax and options
• ✓ Working code examples
• ✓ Accurate technical terminology

Workshop Quality (for labs):

• ✓ Clear learning objectives
• ✓ Step-by-step instructions
• ✓ Verification commands with expected outputs
• ✓ Troubleshooting guidance
• ✓ Progressive skill building

Demo Quality (for demos):

• ✓ Know/Show structure
• ✓ Business value messaging
• ✓ Presenter guidance
• ✓ Visual cues for slides/diagrams
• ✓ Quantified metrics and ROI

Accessibility:

• ✓ Alt text for all images
• ✓ Proper heading hierarchy
• ✓ Clear, inclusive language
• ✓ Keyboard-accessible instructions

Content Quality:

• ✓ Complete prerequisites
• ✓ Consistent formatting
• ✓ Proper AsciiDoc syntax
• ✓ References and citations
• ✓ Professional tone

Output Format

Results are presented in clear, actionable format:

📊 Summary Table of All Issues
┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Duplicate References sections    │ Critical │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing descriptive alt text     │ Critical │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Title case headings              │ High     │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing blank lines before lists │ High     │ 2 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ "Powerful" usage                 │ High     │ 4 files   │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

---

✅ Strengths Worth Highlighting

Your workshop excels in these areas:

1. Exceptional RBAC Implementation Guidance - Module 01 provides comprehensive step-by-step RBAC configuration that's production-ready
2. Strong Business Context - Outstanding business scenario addressing real organizational challenges
3. Excellent Verification Sections - Checkpoints with ✅ expected results and troubleshooting are exemplary
4. Perfect External Link Formatting - ALL external links correctly use ^ caret (opens in new tab)
5. Clear Persona-Based Learning - User persona approach effectively demonstrates RBAC in action

---

## Detailed Issue Breakdown (on request)

### 1. Missing Verification Commands
**File**: module-01-install-aap.adoc:145
**Impact**: Learners can't verify success, leading to confusion
**Priority**: Critical

**Current**:
```asciidoc
. Deploy the AutomationController:

Fixed:

. Deploy the AutomationController:
+
[source,bash]
----
oc get automationcontroller -n ansible-automation-platform
----
+
Expected output:
----
NAME                  STATUS   AGE
platform-controller   Running  5m
----

How to fix:

1. Add verification command after deployment step
2. Include expected output
3. Add success indicator

## Priority Levels

Issues are categorized by priority:

- **Critical**: Must fix before publishing - impacts functionality, accessibility, or brand compliance
- **High**: Should fix soon - affects quality and user experience significantly
- **Medium**: Recommended fixes - improves overall quality
- **Low**: Nice to have - polish and optimization

## Integration with Other Skills

**After `/create-lab`**:
- Run verification on generated module
- Apply fixes before committing
- Ensure quality standards met

**After `/create-demo`**:
- Verify Know/Show structure
- Check business messaging
- Validate presenter guidance

**Before publishing**:
- Final verification of all content
- Batch check entire workshop
- Generate quality report

## Tips for Best Results

**Be specific about content type**:
- Workshop modules use different standards than demos
- Infrastructure files (nav.adoc, README.adoc) have different requirements

**Review before auto-fix**:
- Understand why changes are recommended
- Some fixes may need manual adjustment
- Technical accuracy requires domain knowledge

**Run verification regularly**:
- After creating new modules
- Before submitting PRs
- After major content updates

## Quality Standards

Every verification run checks:
- ✓ Red Hat brand compliance
- ✓ Technical accuracy for current versions
- ✓ Accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA)
- ✓ Learning effectiveness
- ✓ Professional formatting
- ✓ Complete documentation
- ✓ Consistent style

## Files Used

**Verification prompts** (in `.claude/prompts/`):
- `enhanced_verification_workshop.txt`
- `enhanced_verification_demo.txt`
- `redhat_style_guide_validation.txt`
- `verify_workshop_structure.txt`
- `verify_technical_accuracy_workshop.txt`
- `verify_technical_accuracy_demo.txt`
- `verify_accessibility_compliance_workshop.txt`
- `verify_accessibility_compliance_demo.txt`
- `verify_content_quality.txt`

**Reference examples**:
- `content/modules/ROOT/pages/workshop/example/`
- `content/modules/ROOT/pages/demo/`