Reviewing end-user and product documentation quality across voice/tone, structure, completeness, clarity, and technical accuracy; flags issues with prioritized findings and a pass/needs-revision verdict. Use when reviewing draft docs, running a pre-publication check, auditing existing docs, or enforcing style-guide compliance. Skip when writing new docs, or checking voice only (use ring:applying-voice-and-tone).
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add LerianStudio/ring --skill reviewing-docs --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Reviewing Docs?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/lerianstudio-reviewing-docs)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ring:reviewing-docs
description: "Reviewing end-user and product documentation quality across voice/tone, structure, completeness, clarity, and technical accuracy; flags issues with prioritized findings and a pass/needs-revision verdict. Use when reviewing draft docs, running a pre-publication check, auditing existing docs, or enforcing style-guide compliance. Skip when writing new docs, or checking voice only (use ring:applying-voice-and-tone)."
---
# Documentation Review Process
## When to use
- Reviewing draft documentation
- Pre-publication quality check
- Documentation audit
- Ensuring style guide compliance
## Skip when
- Writing new documentation → dispatch the guide-writer or api-writer agent
- Only checking voice → use ring:applying-voice-and-tone
## Sequence
**Runs after:** guide-writer, api-writer (agents)
## Related
**Complementary:** ring:applying-voice-and-tone, ring:structuring-documentation
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`).
```markdown
## 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
---
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!