docs-review

# Documentation Review Skill

@./../_shared/metabase-style-guide.md

## Review mode detection

**IMPORTANT: Before starting the review, determine which mode to use:**

1. **PR review mode**: If the `mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review` tool is available, you are reviewing a GitHub PR
   - Use the pending review workflow to post all issues as one cohesive review
   - Follow the workflow steps in "PR review mode format" below

2. **Local review mode**: If the MCP tool is NOT available, output issues in the conversation
   - Format all issues in a numbered markdown list (as described in "Feedback format" below)

## Review process

1. **Detect review mode** - Check if `mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review` is available
2. Read the changes through once to understand intent
3. Check all issues that violate style guide or significantly impact readability
4. Only flag issues worth mentioning - if it won't make a material difference to the reader, skip it
5. **REQUIRED: Number ALL feedback sequentially** - Start from Issue 1 and increment for each issue found

## Review checklist

Run through the diff looking for these issues:

**Tone and voice:**

- [ ] Formal/corporate language ("utilize" not "use", "offerings", etc.)
- [ ] "Users" instead of "people" or "companies"
- [ ] Excessive exclamation points or overly peppy tone
- [ ] Telling readers something is cool instead of showing them

**Structure and clarity:**

- [ ] Important information buried instead of leading
- [ ] Verbose text that adds little value
- [ ] Paragraphs without clear purpose
- [ ] Vague headings that don't convey the point
- [ ] Instructions explain "why" before telling "what to do"
- [ ] Tasks described as "easy" or "simple"

**Links and references:**

- [ ] Linking the word "here" instead of descriptive text
- [ ] Links in headings (unless entire heading is a link)

**Formatting:**

- [ ] Backticks on UI elements (should use **bold**)
- [ ] Backticks used as quotation marks
- [ ] Ampersands as "and" substitute (except proper nouns)
- [ ] Inconsistent list formatting

**Code and examples:**

- [ ] Code examples that don't work or would error
- [ ] Commands not in execution order
- [ ] Full-width screenshots instead of scoped UI elements
- [ ] Excessive or unnecessary images

**Sentence construction:**

- [ ] Overuse of pronouns when introducing new terms

## Quick scan table

| Pattern                       | Issue                                         |
| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- |
| `Button name` or `UI element` | Should use **bold** not backticks             |
| we can do X, our feature      | Should be "Metabase" or "it"                  |
| click here, read more here    | Need descriptive link text                    |
| easy, simple, just            | Remove condescending qualifiers               |
| users                         | Should be "people" or "companies" if possible |

## Feedback format

**MANDATORY REQUIREMENT: Every single issue MUST be numbered sequentially starting from Issue 1.**

This numbered format is NON-NEGOTIABLE. It allows users to efficiently reference specific issues (e.g., "fix issues 1, 3, and 5") and track which feedback has been addressed.

### Local review mode format

When outputting issues in the conversation (local mode), use this format:

```markdown
## Issues

**Issue 1: [Brief title]**
Line X: Succinct description of the issue
[code or example]
Suggested fix or succinct explanation

**Issue 2: [Brief title]**
Line Y: Description of the issue
Suggested fix or explanation

**Issue 3: [Brief title]**
...
```

**Examples:**

> **Issue 1: Backticks on UI elements**
> Line 42: This uses backticks for the UI element. Use **bold** instead: **Filter** not `Filter`.

> **Issue 2: Formal tone**
> Line 15: This could be more conversational. Consider: "You can't..." instead of "You cannot..."

> **Issue 3: Vague heading**
> Line 8: The heading could be more specific. Try stating the point directly: "Run migrations before upgrading" vs "Upgrade process"

### PR review mode format

When posting to GitHub (PR mode), use the **pending review workflow**:

**Workflow steps:**

1. **Start a review**: Use `mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review` to begin a pending review
   - This creates a draft review that won't be visible until submitted

2. **Get diff information**: Use `mcp__github__get_pull_request_diff` to understand the code changes and line numbers
   - This helps you determine the correct file paths and line numbers for comments

3. **Identify ALL issues**: Read through all changes and identify every issue worth mentioning
   - Collect all issues before posting any comments
   - Number them sequentially (Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, etc.)

4. **Add review comments**: Use `mcp__github__add_pull_request_review_comment_to_pending_review` for each issue
   - **CRITICAL**: Post ALL comments in a SINGLE response using multiple tool calls in parallel
   - Each comment should reference a specific file path and line number from the diff
   - Start each comment body with `**Issue N: [Brief title]**`
   - Include the description and suggested fix

5. **Submit the review**: Use `mcp__github__submit_pending_pull_request_review` to publish all comments at once
   - Use event type `"COMMENT"` (NOT "REQUEST_CHANGES") to make it non-blocking
   - **Do NOT include a body message** - Leave the body empty or omit it entirely
   - All comments will appear together as one cohesive review

**Comment format example:**
```
**Issue 1: Backticks on UI elements**

This uses backticks for the UI element. Use **bold** instead: **Filter** not `Filter`.
```

**IMPORTANT**:
- Each issue gets its own review comment attached to the pending review
- Number ALL comments sequentially (Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, etc.)
- Always start the comment body with `**Issue N: [Brief title]**`
- **MUST add all comments in parallel in a single response** - Do NOT add them one after another in separate responses
- Do NOT output a summary message to the conversation - only post GitHub review comments
- When submitting the review, do NOT include a body parameter (or leave it empty) to avoid cluttering the PR with summary text
- The review will appear as a single review with multiple comments when submitted

## Final check

1. Remove any issues from your assessment that won't make a material difference to the reader if addressed. Only flag issues worth the author's time to fix.
2. **Verify all issues are numbered sequentially** starting from Issue 1 with no gaps in numbering.
3. Confirm the format exactly matches: `**Issue N: [Brief title]**` where N is the issue number.
4. **In PR mode**: Verify each issue was posted as a separate GitHub comment (not output to conversation).