Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

doc-req-reviewer(文档要求审稿人)

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

doc-req-reviewer 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 48,150。

总安装 703周安装 29GitHub Stars 14下载 230核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:doc-req-reviewer(文档要求审稿人)
来源仓库:https://github.com/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework
仓库路径:skills/doc-req-reviewer
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework --skill doc-req-reviewer
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework --skill doc-req-reviewer

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

深度审核原子需求的实现路径与测试覆盖。检查单元测试可行性与设计对齐程度。标识需人工确认的复杂实现决策点。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。作为 SPEC/CTR 生成前的最终质量关卡。

doc-req-reviewer 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/doc-req-reviewer

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework --skill doc-req…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

doc-req-reviewer 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework --skill doc-req-reviewer。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

doc-req-reviewer 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

doc-req-reviewer 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

doc-req-reviewer 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

doc-req-reviewer 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 703 次,近一周安装 29 次,下载 230 次,GitHub 14 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

doc-req-reviewer 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
doc-req-reviewer

文档要求审稿人 · 本页

70314只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

doc-req-reviewer

Purpose

Comprehensive content review and quality assurance for Atomic Requirements (REQ) documents. This skill performs deep content analysis beyond structural validation, checking requirement atomicity, SYS alignment, implementation paths, unit test coverage, and identifying issues that require manual review.

Layer: 7 (REQ Quality Assurance)

Upstream: REQ (from doc-req-autopilot or doc-req)

Downstream: None (final QA gate before SPEC/CTR generation)


When to Use This Skill

Use doc-req-reviewer when:

  • After REQ Generation: Run immediately after doc-req-autopilot completes
  • Manual REQ Edits: After making manual changes to REQ
  • Pre-SPEC Check: Before running doc-spec-autopilot
  • Pre-CTR Check: Before running doc-ctr-autopilot
  • Periodic Review: Regular quality checks on existing REQs

Do NOT use when:

  • REQ does not exist yet (use doc-req or doc-req-autopilot first)
  • Need structural/schema validation only (use doc-req-validator)
  • Generating new REQ content (use doc-req)

Skill vs Validator: Key Differences

Aspectdoc-req-validatordoc-req-reviewer
FocusSchema compliance, SPEC-Ready scoreContent quality, implementation readiness
ChecksRequired sections, 11-section format (MVP)Atomicity, implementation paths, test coverage
Auto-FixStructural issues onlyContent issues (links, formatting)
OutputSPEC-Ready + IMPL-Ready scoresReview score + issue list
PhasePhase 4 (Validation)Phase 5 (Final Review)
BlockingScore < threshold blocksReview score < threshold flags

Review Workflow

flowchart TD
    A[Input: REQ Path] --> B[Load REQ Files]
    B --> C{Single or Module?}

    C -->|Module| D[Load All REQ Files]
    C -->|Single| E[Load Single File]

    D --> F[Run Review Checks]
    E --> F

    subgraph Review["Review Checks"]
        F --> G[1. Requirement Atomicity]
        G --> H[2. SYS Alignment]
        H --> I[3. Acceptance Criteria Quality]
        I --> J[4. Implementation Path Completeness]
        J --> K[5. Unit Test Category Coverage]
        K --> L[6. Cross-Link Integrity]
        L --> M[7. Placeholder Detection]
        M --> M2[8. Naming Compliance]
        M2 --> N2[9. Upstream Drift Detection]
    end

    N2 --> N{Issues Found?}
    N -->|Yes| O[Categorize Issues]
    O --> P{Auto-Fixable?}
    P -->|Yes| Q[Apply Auto-Fixes]
    Q --> R[Re-run Affected Checks]
    P -->|No| S[Flag for Manual Review]
    R --> N
    S --> T[Generate Report]
    N -->|No| T
    T --> U[Calculate Review Score]
    U --> V{Score >= Threshold?}
    V -->|Yes| W[PASS]
    V -->|No| X[FAIL with Details]

Review Checks

0. Structure Compliance (11 sections - MVP) - BLOCKING

Validates REQ follows the mandatory nested folder rule.

Nested Folder Rule: ALL REQ documents MUST be in nested folders.

Required Structure:

REQ TypeRequired Location
Monolithicdocs/07_REQ/REQ-NN_{slug}/REQ-NN_{slug}.md

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-STR001ErrorREQ not in nested folder (BLOCKING)
REV-STR002ErrorFolder name doesn't match REQ ID
REV-STR003WarningFile name doesn't match folder name

This check is BLOCKING - REQ must pass structure validation before other checks proceed.


1. Requirement Atomicity

Validates each requirement is truly atomic.

Scope:

  • Single responsibility
  • No compound requirements
  • Independently testable
  • Clear scope boundaries

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-RA001ErrorRequirement has multiple responsibilities
REV-RA002WarningCompound requirement (contains AND/OR)
REV-RA003WarningNot independently testable
REV-RA004InfoScope boundaries could be clearer

2. SYS Alignment

Validates REQ traces to SYS requirements.

Scope:

  • Every REQ maps to SYS requirement
  • Decomposition is complete
  • No orphaned requirements
  • Functional coverage maintained

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-SA001ErrorREQ without SYS source
REV-SA002WarningSYS requirement not fully decomposed
REV-SA003WarningOrphaned requirement detected
REV-SA004InfoMultiple REQs from single SYS (acceptable)

3. Acceptance Criteria Quality

Validates acceptance criteria are comprehensive.

Scope:

  • Minimum 10 functional criteria
  • Minimum 5 quality criteria
  • Categories covered ([Logic], [Validation], [State], [Edge], [Security])
  • Measurable outcomes

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-AC001ErrorLess than 10 functional criteria
REV-AC002ErrorLess than 5 quality criteria
REV-AC003WarningMissing [Security] criteria
REV-AC004WarningCriterion not measurable
REV-AC005Info[Edge] case criteria could be expanded

4. Implementation Path Completeness

Validates Section 11 implementation guidance.

Scope:

  • Code implementation paths defined
  • Module locations specified
  • Dependencies documented
  • Method signatures suggested

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-IP001ErrorNo implementation paths defined
REV-IP002WarningModule location not specified
REV-IP003WarningDependencies not documented
REV-IP004InfoMethod signatures not suggested

5. Unit Test Category Coverage

Validates Section 8 test categories.

Scope:

  • All 5 categories present ([Logic], [Validation], [State], [Edge], [Security])
  • Minimum test cases per category
  • Test rationale documented

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-UT001ErrorMissing test category
REV-UT002WarningInsufficient tests in category
REV-UT003InfoTest rationale not documented

6. Cross-Link Integrity

Validates Section 10.5 cross-links.

Scope:

  • @discoverability tags valid
  • Related REQs exist
  • Bidirectional links present

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-CL001ErrorBroken cross-link
REV-CL002WarningMissing bidirectional link
REV-CL003Info@discoverability target not yet created

7. Placeholder Detection

Identifies incomplete content requiring replacement.

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-P001Error[TODO] placeholder found
REV-P002Error[TBD] placeholder found
REV-P003WarningTemplate value not replaced

8. Naming Compliance

Validates element IDs follow doc-naming standards.

Scope:

  • Element IDs use REQ.NN.xxxx format
  • Element type codes valid for REQ (01, 05, 06, 27)
  • Atomic file naming convention

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-N001ErrorInvalid element ID format
REV-N002ErrorElement type code not valid for REQ
REV-N003ErrorLegacy pattern detected

9. Upstream Drift Detection (Mandatory Cache)

Detects when upstream SYS documents have been modified after the REQ was created or last updated.

The drift cache is mandatory - the reviewer MUST create/update it after every review.

Purpose: Identifies stale REQ content that may not reflect current system requirements. When SYS documents change, the REQ may need updates to maintain alignment with system-level specifications.

Upstream Documents:

  • SYS documents: System Requirements that REQ atomic requirements decompose from

Scope:

  • @sys: tag targets (SYS document references)
  • Traceability section upstream artifact links
  • Any markdown links to ../06_SYS/
  • Section 10 parent requirement references

Detection Methods:

MethodDescriptionPrecision
Timestamp ComparisonCompares SYS doc mtime vs REQ creation/update dateMedium
Content HashSHA-256 hash of referenced SYS requirement sectionsHigh
Version TrackingChecks version field in YAML frontmatterHigh

Drift Cache File (MANDATORY):

Location: docs/07_REQ/.drift_cache.json

{
  "cache_version": "1.0",
  "last_review": "2026-02-10T17:00:00",
  "reviewer_version": "1.3",
  "upstream_hashes": {
    "docs/06_SYS/SYS-01_f1_iam.md": {
      "hash": "a1b2c3d4e5f6...",
      "mtime": "2026-02-08T10:15:00",
      "version": "1.0"
    },
    "docs/06_SYS/SYS-03_f3_observability.md": {
      "hash": "e5f6g7h8i9j0...",
      "mtime": "2026-02-10T14:30:00",
      "version": "1.2"
    }
  },
  "req_states": {
    "REQ-01": {
      "last_reviewed": "2026-02-10T17:00:00",
      "upstream_refs": ["docs/06_SYS/SYS-01_f1_iam.md"]
    },
    "REQ-03": {
      "last_reviewed": "2026-02-10T17:00:00",
      "upstream_refs": ["docs/06_SYS/SYS-03_f3_observability.md"]
    }
  }
}

Three-Phase Detection Algorithm:

Phase 1: Load Cache
─────────────────────
1. Check if docs/07_REQ/.drift_cache.json exists
2. If exists:
   a. Load cached upstream hashes
   b. Load cached REQ states
3. If not exists:
   a. Initialize empty cache structure
   b. Flag as first review (REV-D006)

Phase 2: Detect Drift
─────────────────────
1. Extract all upstream references from REQ:
   - @sys: tags → [SYS document ID, requirement ID]
   - Links to ../06_SYS/ → [path]
   - Traceability table upstream artifacts → [path]
   - Section 10 parent SYS requirement → [SYS.NN.xxxx]

2. For each upstream reference:
   a. Resolve path to absolute file path
   b. Check file exists (already covered by Check #2)
   c. Compute current SHA-256 hash
   d. Compare to cached hash
   e. If hash differs → flag as DRIFT (REV-D002)
   f. If mtime > REQ last_reviewed → flag as TIMESTAMP_DRIFT (REV-D001)

3. Calculate drift severity:
   a. Compute content diff percentage
   b. If >20% change → Critical (REV-D005)
   c. If version incremented → Info (REV-D003)

Phase 3: Update Cache (MANDATORY)
─────────────────────────────────
1. For each upstream document reviewed:
   a. Compute current SHA-256 hash
   b. Record current mtime
   c. Extract version from frontmatter
2. Update req_states with review timestamp
3. Write updated cache to docs/07_REQ/.drift_cache.json
4. Cache update is MANDATORY - never skip this step

Hash Calculation (MANDATORY BASH EXECUTION):

CRITICAL: Execute actual bash commands. DO NOT write placeholder values.

sha256sum <file_path> | cut -d' ' -f1

Store as: "hash": "sha256:<64_hex_characters>"

REJECTED VALUES (re-compute immediately):

  • sha256:verified_no_drift
  • sha256:pending_verification
  • Any value where hex portion!= 64 characters

Verification:

grep -oP '"hash":\s*"sha256:[0-9a-f]{64}"' .drift_cache.json

Error Codes:

CodeSeverityDescription
REV-D001WarningUpstream SYS modified after REQ creation
REV-D002WarningReferenced SYS requirement section has changed (hash mismatch)
REV-D003InfoUpstream SYS version incremented
REV-D004InfoNew content added to upstream SYS
REV-D005ErrorCritical SYS substantially modified (>20% change)
REV-D006InfoCache created - first review
REV-D009ErrorInvalid hash placeholder detected (verified_no_drift, pending_verification)

Report Output:

## Upstream Drift Analysis

**Cache Status**: Updated | Created | N/A
**Cache Location**: docs/07_REQ/.drift_cache.json

| Upstream Document | REQ Reference | Last Modified | REQ Updated | Days Stale | Severity |
|-------------------|---------------|---------------|-------------|------------|----------|
| SYS-01_f1_iam.md | @sys Section 3.2 | 2026-02-08T10:15:00 | 2026-02-05T09:00:00 | 3 | Warning |
| SYS-03_f3_observability.md | Traceability | 2026-02-10T14:30:00 | 2026-02-05T09:00:00 | 5 | Warning |

**Recommendation**: Review upstream SYS changes and update REQ if system requirements have changed.

Auto-Actions:

  • Update docs/07_REQ/.drift_cache.json with current hashes after review (MANDATORY)
  • Add [DRIFT] marker to affected @sys tags (optional)
  • Generate drift summary in review report

Configuration:

SettingDefaultDescription
cache_enabledtrue (Mandatory)Cache is always enabled
drift_threshold_days7Days before drift becomes Warning
critical_threshold_days30Days before drift becomes Error
tracked_patterns@sys:Patterns to track for drift

Review Score Calculation

Scoring Formula:

CategoryWeightCalculation
Requirement Atomicity14%(atomic / total_reqs) × 14
SYS Alignment14%(aligned / total_reqs) × 14
Acceptance Criteria Quality19%(quality_score) × 19
Implementation Path Completeness14%(complete_paths / total) × 14
Unit Test Category Coverage14%(covered_categories / 5) × 14
Cross-Link Integrity5%(valid_links / total) × 5
Placeholder Detection5%(no_placeholders? 5: 5 - count)
Naming Compliance10%(valid_ids / total_ids) × 10
Upstream Drift5%(fresh_refs / total_refs) × 5

Total: Sum of all categories (max 100)

Thresholds:

  • PASS: ≥ 90
  • WARNING: 80-89
  • FAIL: < 80

Command Usage

# Review specific REQ module
/doc-req-reviewer REQ-03

# Review specific atomic REQ
/doc-req-reviewer REQ-03-001

# Review REQ by path
/doc-req-reviewer docs/07_REQ/REQ-03_f3_observability/

# Review all REQs
/doc-req-reviewer all

Output Report

Review reports are stored alongside the reviewed document per project standards.

Nested Folder Rule: ALL REQ use nested folders (REQ-NN_{slug}/) regardless of size. This ensures review reports, fix reports, and drift cache files are organized with their parent document.

File Naming: REQ-NN.R_review_report_vNNN.md (module-level) or REQ-NN-SSS.R_review_report_vNNN.md (atomic-level)

Audit Wrapper Compatibility: doc-req-audit may emit preferred REQ-NN.A_audit_report_vNNN.md; reviewer output remains valid legacy-compatible input for fixer.

Location: Inside the REQ nested folder: docs/07_REQ/REQ-NN_{slug}/

Versioning Rules

  1. First Review: Creates REQ-NN.R_review_report_v001.md
  2. Subsequent Reviews: Auto-increments version (v002, v003, etc.)
  3. Same-Day Reviews: Each review gets unique version number

Version Detection: Scans folder for existing REQ-NN.R_review_report_v*.md files and increments.

Example:

docs/07_REQ/REQ-03_f3_observability/
├── REQ-03-001_metrics_collection.md
├── REQ-03-001.R_review_report_v001.md    # First review
├── REQ-03-001.R_review_report_v002.md    # After fixes
└── .drift_cache.json

Delta Reporting

When previous reviews exist, include score comparison in the report.

See REVIEW_DOCUMENT_STANDARDS.md for complete versioning requirements.


Integration with doc-req-autopilot

This skill is invoked during Phase 5 of doc-req-autopilot:

flowchart LR
    A[Phase 4: Validation] --> B[Phase 5: Final Review]
    B --> C{doc-req-reviewer}
    C --> D[Phase 6: Continue]

Related Skills

SkillRelationship
doc-namingNaming standards for Check #8
doc-req-autopilotInvokes this skill in Phase 5
doc-req-validatorStructural validation (Phase 4)
doc-req-fixerApplies fixes based on review findings
doc-reqREQ creation rules
doc-sys-reviewerUpstream QA
doc-spec-autopilotDownstream consumer
doc-ctr-autopilotDownstream consumer (for external APIs)

Version History

VersionDateChanges
1.42026-02-11Added Check #0: Structure Compliance (BLOCKING) - validates nested folder rule; REV-STR001-STR003 error codes; BLOCKING gate before other checks proceed
1.32026-02-10Made drift cache mandatory; Three-phase detection algorithm (Load/Detect/Update); Added REV-D006 error code for first review; Cache location standardized to docs/07_REQ/.drift_cache.json; Added cache status to report output
1.22026-02-10Added Check #9: Upstream Drift Detection - detects when SYS documents modified after REQ creation; REV-D001-D005 error codes; drift cache support; configurable thresholds; Added doc-req-fixer to Related Skills
1.12026-02-10Added review versioning support (_vNNN pattern); Delta reporting for score comparison
1.02026-02-10Initial skill creation with 8 review checks; Atomicity validation; Acceptance criteria quality; Implementation path completeness

Implementation Plan Consistency (IPLAN-004)

  • Treat plan-derived outputs as valid source mode and verify intent preservation from implementation plan scope/objectives.
  • Validate upstream autopilot precedence assumption: --iplan > --ref > --prompt.
  • Flag objective/scope conflicts between plan context and artifact output as blocking issues requiring clarification.
  • Do not introduce legacy fallback paths such as docs-v2.0/00_REF.

平台分布

Codex

37.47%
按下载量换算86

Claude

31.03%
按下载量换算71

Cursor

18.18%
按下载量换算42

Gemini CLI

9.15%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills