review-doc-consistency
Documentation consistency reviewer that checks alignment between code implementation and documentation. Use when user requests reviewing documentation vs code consistency, checking if README/docs are outdated, verifying API documentation accuracy. Applicable for (1) reviewing README vs implementation consistency (2) checking if docs/ directory content is outdated (3) verifying API/config documentation accuracy (4) generating documentation consistency reports. Trigger words include doc review, documentation consistency, check outdated docs, verify docs.
Best use case
review-doc-consistency is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Documentation consistency reviewer that checks alignment between code implementation and documentation. Use when user requests reviewing documentation vs code consistency, checking if README/docs are outdated, verifying API documentation accuracy. Applicable for (1) reviewing README vs implementation consistency (2) checking if docs/ directory content is outdated (3) verifying API/config documentation accuracy (4) generating documentation consistency reports. Trigger words include doc review, documentation consistency, check outdated docs, verify docs.
Teams using review-doc-consistency should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/review-doc-consistency/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How review-doc-consistency Compares
| Feature / Agent | review-doc-consistency | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Documentation consistency reviewer that checks alignment between code implementation and documentation. Use when user requests reviewing documentation vs code consistency, checking if README/docs are outdated, verifying API documentation accuracy. Applicable for (1) reviewing README vs implementation consistency (2) checking if docs/ directory content is outdated (3) verifying API/config documentation accuracy (4) generating documentation consistency reports. Trigger words include doc review, documentation consistency, check outdated docs, verify docs.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
SKILL.md Source
# Documentation Consistency Reviewer ## Goal Systematically identify all "outdated" or "inconsistent with implementation" descriptions in README + docs/, outputting ≥30 issue items. ## Core Principles 1. **Code is truth** - When documentation conflicts with code, source code/config/contract files are authoritative 2. **Evidence before conclusions** - Each issue must cite code/config location as evidence 3. **Contracts first** - OpenAPI/proto/schema/TS types are treated as SSOT (Single Source of Truth) 4. **Security default tightening** - Security-related inconsistencies are prioritized as high severity ## Review Process ### 1. Document Enumeration ```bash # Scan scope - README.md (root directory) - docs/**/*.md (all documentation) - Contract files: OpenAPI/proto/GraphQL schema/TS types ``` ### 2. Document-by-Document Review For each document: 1. List key claims/commitments/configs/interface items 2. Search for corresponding implementation in code 3. Compare differences: missing/renamed/behavior mismatch/default value mismatch 4. Record issues using template ### 3. Cross-Check - Reverse check documentation from contract files - Reverse check documentation from config files See [checklist.md](checklist.md) for detailed review checklist. ## Severity Levels | Level | Definition | Example | |-------|------------|---------| | P0 | Security issue/serious misleading | Docs say sandbox enabled but code doesn't enable it | | P1 | Core functionality inconsistency | Following docs leads to failure | | P2 | Incomplete examples/naming inconsistency | Doesn't directly block usage | | P3 | Wording/formatting/link minor issues | Doesn't affect functionality | | Pending Evidence | Suspicious but insufficient evidence | Needs further investigation | ## Output Format See [output-format.md](output-format.md) for detailed templates. ### Single Issue Item ```markdown ### [Title] - **Severity**: P0/P1/P2/P3/Pending Evidence - **Location**: `<file_path>:<line_number>` - **Evidence**: - Documentation: [quote] - Code: [quote] - **Impact**: [Misleading consequences] - **Suggestion**: [Minimal fix] - **Related Principle**: Code is truth/Contracts first/Security default tightening/... ``` ### Review Conclusion ```markdown ## Review Conclusion - **Verdict**: Pass/Conditional Pass/Fail - **Summary**: P0:x P1:x P2:x P3:x Pending:x - **Fix Priority**: P0 → P1 → P2 → P3 ``` ## Multi-Agent Parallel For acceleration, split by following dimensions for parallel multi-agent execution: 1. **By document type** - One agent each for README, API docs, development guide 2. **By module** - One agent per functional module's documentation 3. **By check direction** - One checks docs against code, another checks code against docs Deduplication and unified severity rating needed when aggregating. ## Execution After review completion, output `doc-consistency.md` report file, and also output `doc-consistency.json` (structured issue list for aggregation/deduplication/statistics).