Documentation Review Process
Review documentation systematically across multiple dimensions. A thorough review catches issues before they reach users.
Review Dimensions
- Voice and Tone – Does it sound right?
- Structure – Is it organized effectively?
- Completeness – Is everything covered?
- Clarity – Is it easy to understand?
- Technical Accuracy – Is it correct?
Voice and Tone Review
| Check | Flag If |
|---|---|
| Second person | "Users can..." instead of "You can..." |
| Present tense | "will return" instead of "returns" |
| Active voice | "is returned by the API" instead of "The API returns" |
| Tone | Arrogant ("Obviously...") or condescending |
Structure Review
| Check | Flag If |
|---|---|
| Hierarchy | Deep nesting (H4+), unclear parent-child |
| Headings | Title Case instead of sentence case |
| Section dividers | Missing --- between major topics |
| Navigation | Missing links to related content |
Completeness Review
Conceptual docs: Definition, characteristics, how it works, related concepts, next steps
How-to guides: Prerequisites, all steps, verification, troubleshooting, next steps
API docs: HTTP method/path, all parameters, all fields, required vs optional, examples, error codes
Clarity Review
| Check | Flag If |
|---|---|
| Sentence length | >25 words per sentence |
| Paragraph length | >3 sentences per paragraph |
| Jargon | Technical terms not explained on first use |
| Examples | Abstract data ("foo", "bar") instead of realistic |
Technical Accuracy Review
Conceptual: Facts correct, behavior matches description, links work
API docs: Paths correct, methods correct, field names match API, types accurate, examples valid JSON
Code examples: Compiles/runs, output matches description, no syntax errors
Common Issues to Flag
| Category | Issue | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Voice | Third person ("Users can...") | "You can..." |
| Voice | Passive ("...is returned") | "...returns" |
| Voice | Future tense ("will provide") | "provides" |
| Structure | Title case heading | Sentence case |
| Structure | Wall of text | Add --- dividers |
| Completeness | Missing prereqs | Add prerequisites |
| Completeness | No examples | Add code examples |
| Clarity | Long sentences (40+ words) | Split into multiple |
| Clarity | Undefined jargon | Define on first use |
Review Output Format
Note: Documentation reviews usePASS/NEEDS_REVISION/MAJOR_ISSUESverdicts (graduated), which differ from code review verdicts (PASS/FAIL/NEEDS_DISCUSSION).
## Review Summary
**Overall Assessment:** [PASS | NEEDS_REVISION | MAJOR_ISSUES]
### Issues Found
#### High Priority
1. **Line 45:** Passive voice "is created by" → "creates"
#### Medium Priority
1. **Line 23:** Title case in heading → sentence case
#### Low Priority
1. **Line 12:** Could add example for clarity
### Recommendations
1. Fix passive voice instances (3 found)
2. Add missing API field documentationQuick Review Checklist
Voice (30s): "You" not "users", present tense, active voice
Structure (30s): Sentence case headings, section dividers, scannable (bullets/tables)
Completeness (1m): Examples present, links work, next steps included
Accuracy (varies): Technical facts correct, code examples work
Standards Loading (MANDATORY)
Before reviewing documentation:
- Load voice and tone -
ring:voice-and-tonefor style verification - Load structure patterns -
ring:documentation-structurefor organization checks - Load document type patterns -
ring:writing-functional-docsorring:writing-api-docs
HARD GATE: CANNOT review documentation without loading relevant standards.
Blocker Criteria - STOP and Report
| Condition | Decision | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Style guide unavailable | STOP | Report: "Need style guide to review against" |
| Source material missing | STOP | Report: "Need source to verify technical accuracy" |
| Review scope undefined | STOP | Report: "Need to know what aspects to review" |
| Technical SME unavailable | STOP | Report: "Need SME access for accuracy verification" |
Cannot Be Overridden
These requirements are NON-NEGOTIABLE:
- MUST review all five dimensions (voice, structure, completeness, clarity, accuracy)
- MUST flag all issues found (not just major ones)
- MUST provide specific line references for issues
- MUST categorize issues by priority (High/Medium/Low)
- CANNOT approve documentation with HIGH-priority issues
- CANNOT skip accuracy verification
Severity Calibration
| Severity | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Factually incorrect, misleading information | Wrong API paths, incorrect behavior described |
| HIGH | Major voice/structure violations, missing sections | Passive voice throughout, no examples |
| MEDIUM | Multiple minor issues, inconsistencies | Mixed pronouns, some title case |
| LOW | Polish issues, optimization opportunities | Could flow better, minor wording |
Pressure Resistance
| User Says | Your Response |
|---|---|
| "Just do a quick review, we're rushing" | "Quick review still covers all 5 dimensions. CANNOT skip any review category." |
| "Only check for typos" | "Review MUST cover voice, structure, completeness, clarity, AND accuracy. Typos are LOW priority." |
| "Skip technical accuracy, trust the writer" | "Technical accuracy MUST be verified. Trust but verify." |
| "Approve it, minor issues can be fixed later" | "CANNOT approve with HIGH priority issues. They must be fixed first." |
| "The content is more important than style" | "Style affects comprehension. Voice and tone are REQUIRED review dimensions." |
Anti-Rationalization Table
| Rationalization | Why It's WRONG | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Good enough for now" | Good enough ≠ meets standards | MUST flag all issues |
| "Writer knows the product" | Knowledge ≠ documentation quality | Review all dimensions |
| "Style issues are subjective" | Style guidelines are objective standards | Apply guidelines consistently |
| "Users won't notice minor issues" | Minor issues accumulate into poor UX | Flag all issues regardless of size |
| "Review is blocking release" | Poor docs also block user success | Complete review properly |
| "Trust the automated checks" | Automated checks miss context | Human review is REQUIRED |
When This Skill is Not Needed
Signs that documentation doesn't need review:
- Documentation was written by ring-tw-team specialists
- Previous review found zero issues
- Documentation hasn't changed since last review
- All five review dimensions already verified
If all above are true: Review may be skipped for unchanged content.
Note: New or modified documentation MUST always be reviewed.