Documentation Review Process

Review documentation systematically across multiple dimensions. A thorough review catches issues before they reach users.

Review Dimensions

1. Voice and Tone – Does it sound right?
2. Structure – Is it organized effectively?
3. Completeness – Is everything covered?
4. Clarity – Is it easy to understand?
5. 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 use PASS/NEEDS_REVISION/MAJOR_ISSUES verdicts (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 documentation

---

Quick 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:

1. Load voice and tone - ring:voice-and-tone for style verification
2. Load structure patterns - ring:documentation-structure for organization checks
3. Load document type patterns - ring:writing-functional-docs or ring: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.