context: fork model: sonnet hooks: PreToolUse: - .claude/hooks/validate-paths.sh

Content Verification Skill

Verify workshop or demo content against Red Hat quality standards, style guidelines, technical accuracy, and accessibility requirements.

When to Use

Use this skill when you want to:

•Verify workshop content before publishing
•Check demo modules for quality and completeness
•Validate technical accuracy and Red Hat style compliance
•Review content for accessibility standards
•Get actionable feedback on content improvements

Don't use this for:

•Creating new content → use /create-lab or /create-demo
•Converting between formats → use /blog-generate

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Content Type

Q: What type of content are you verifying?

Options:

•Workshop module (hands-on lab content)
•Demo module (presenter-led demonstration)
•Multiple files (specify pattern)

Step 2: Locate Content

For single file:

•Provide file path (e.g., content/modules/ROOT/pages/module-01-install-aap.adoc)

For multiple files:

•Provide glob pattern (e.g., content/modules/ROOT/pages/*.adoc)
•Or directory path (e.g., content/modules/ROOT/pages/)

Step 3: Run Verification Agents

I'll run comprehensive verification using these validation frameworks:

For Workshop Content:

•enhanced_verification_workshop.txt - Overall quality assessment
•redhat_style_guide_validation.txt - Red Hat style compliance
•verify_workshop_structure.txt - Workshop structure validation
•verify_technical_accuracy_workshop.txt - Technical accuracy
•verify_accessibility_compliance_workshop.txt - Accessibility standards
•verify_content_quality.txt - General content quality

For Demo Content:

•enhanced_verification_demo.txt - Overall demo quality
•redhat_style_guide_validation.txt - Red Hat style compliance
•verify_technical_accuracy_demo.txt - Demo technical accuracy
•verify_accessibility_compliance_demo.txt - Accessibility standards
•verify_content_quality.txt - General content quality

Step 4: Present Results

I'll provide:

Summary Table:

•Clean table with Issue, Priority, and Files columns
•No time estimates or fix duration
•Clear priority levels (Critical, High, Medium, Low)

Strengths Section:

•What your content does exceptionally well
•Positive highlights to reinforce good practices
•Recognition of quality work

Detailed Breakdown (optional, on request):

•Specific file locations and line numbers
•Before/after examples
•Implementation steps
•How to fix each issue

Step 5: Offer Fixes (Optional)

After showing results, I can:

•Apply fixes automatically (with your approval)
•Provide code snippets for manual fixes
•Explain why each change improves quality

Example Usage

Example 1: Verify Single Workshop Module

code

User: /verify-content

Skill: What type of content are you verifying?
User: Workshop module

Skill: File path?
User: content/modules/ROOT/pages/module-01-install-aap.adoc

[Runs all workshop verification agents]

Skill:
📊 Summary Table of All Issues
┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing verification commands    │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incorrect product name "OCP"     │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing alt text for images      │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incomplete troubleshooting       │ High     │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing learning outcomes        │ High     │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Commands lack expected output    │ Medium   │ 1 file    │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

---

✅ Strengths Worth Highlighting

Your module excels in these areas:

1. Clear Step-by-Step Instructions - Installation steps are well-structured and easy to follow
2. Proper AsciiDoc Formatting - Code blocks and syntax highlighting are correctly implemented
3. Strong Technical Content - Accurate AAP installation procedures for OpenShift

Would you like detailed breakdown of specific issues? [Yes/No]

Example 2: Verify All Modules in Workshop

code

User: Verify all my workshop modules

Skill: Content location?
User: content/modules/ROOT/pages/

[Scans and finds 3 modules + index/overview]

Skill: Found 5 files:
- index.adoc
- 01-overview.adoc
- 02-details.adoc
- module-01-install-aap.adoc
- module-02-configure-aap.adoc

Verify all? [Yes/Select specific files]

User: Yes

[Runs verification on all files]

Skill:
📊 Summary Table of All Issues
┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Inconsistent heading styles      │ Critical │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing alt text for images      │ Critical │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Title case headings              │ High     │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing Red Hat product names    │ High     │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incomplete verification commands │ Medium   │ 2 files   │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

---

✅ Strengths Worth Highlighting

Your workshop excels in these areas:

1. Excellent Business Context - Outstanding scenario in overview addressing real organizational challenges
2. Progressive Learning Flow - Well-structured progression from basic to advanced concepts
3. Strong Technical Depth - Comprehensive AAP configuration coverage across modules
4. Good Documentation Structure - Clear separation of overview, details, and hands-on modules

Would you like detailed breakdown for specific files? [Yes/No]

Verification Standards

Every verification includes:

Red Hat Style Guide:

•✓ Sentence case headlines
•✓ Official Red Hat product names
•✓ No prohibited terms (whitelist/blacklist, etc.)
•✓ Proper hyphenation and formatting
•✓ Serial comma usage

Technical Accuracy:

•✓ Valid commands for current versions
•✓ Correct syntax and options
•✓ Working code examples
•✓ Accurate technical terminology

Workshop Quality (for labs):

•✓ Clear learning objectives
•✓ Step-by-step instructions
•✓ Verification commands with expected outputs
•✓ Troubleshooting guidance
•✓ Progressive skill building

Demo Quality (for demos):

•✓ Know/Show structure
•✓ Business value messaging
•✓ Presenter guidance
•✓ Visual cues for slides/diagrams
•✓ Quantified metrics and ROI

Accessibility:

•✓ Alt text for all images
•✓ Proper heading hierarchy
•✓ Clear, inclusive language
•✓ Keyboard-accessible instructions

Content Quality:

•✓ Complete prerequisites
•✓ Consistent formatting
•✓ Proper AsciiDoc syntax
•✓ References and citations
•✓ Professional tone

Output Format

Results are presented in clear, actionable format:

markdown

📊 Summary Table of All Issues
┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Duplicate References sections    │ Critical │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing descriptive alt text     │ Critical │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Title case headings              │ High     │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing blank lines before lists │ High     │ 2 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ "Powerful" usage                 │ High     │ 4 files   │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

---

✅ Strengths Worth Highlighting

Your workshop excels in these areas:

1. Exceptional RBAC Implementation Guidance - Module 01 provides comprehensive step-by-step RBAC configuration that's production-ready
2. Strong Business Context - Outstanding business scenario addressing real organizational challenges
3. Excellent Verification Sections - Checkpoints with ✅ expected results and troubleshooting are exemplary
4. Perfect External Link Formatting - ALL external links correctly use ^ caret (opens in new tab)
5. Clear Persona-Based Learning - User persona approach effectively demonstrates RBAC in action

---

## Detailed Issue Breakdown (on request)

### 1. Missing Verification Commands
**File**: module-01-install-aap.adoc:145
**Impact**: Learners can't verify success, leading to confusion
**Priority**: Critical

**Current**:
```asciidoc
. Deploy the AutomationController:

Fixed:

asciidoc

. Deploy the AutomationController:
+
[source,bash]
----
oc get automationcontroller -n ansible-automation-platform
----
+
Expected output:
----
NAME                  STATUS   AGE
platform-controller   Running  5m
----

How to fix:

•Add verification command after deployment step
•Include expected output
•Add success indicator

code


## Priority Levels

Issues are categorized by priority:

- **Critical**: Must fix before publishing - impacts functionality, accessibility, or brand compliance
- **High**: Should fix soon - affects quality and user experience significantly
- **Medium**: Recommended fixes - improves overall quality
- **Low**: Nice to have - polish and optimization

## Integration with Other Skills

**After `/create-lab`**:
- Run verification on generated module
- Apply fixes before committing
- Ensure quality standards met

**After `/create-demo`**:
- Verify Know/Show structure
- Check business messaging
- Validate presenter guidance

**Before publishing**:
- Final verification of all content
- Batch check entire workshop
- Generate quality report

## Tips for Best Results

**Be specific about content type**:
- Workshop modules use different standards than demos
- Infrastructure files (nav.adoc, README.adoc) have different requirements

**Review before auto-fix**:
- Understand why changes are recommended
- Some fixes may need manual adjustment
- Technical accuracy requires domain knowledge

**Run verification regularly**:
- After creating new modules
- Before submitting PRs
- After major content updates

## Quality Standards

Every verification run checks:
- ✓ Red Hat brand compliance
- ✓ Technical accuracy for current versions
- ✓ Accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA)
- ✓ Learning effectiveness
- ✓ Professional formatting
- ✓ Complete documentation
- ✓ Consistent style

## Files Used

**Verification prompts** (in `.claude/prompts/`):
- `enhanced_verification_workshop.txt`
- `enhanced_verification_demo.txt`
- `redhat_style_guide_validation.txt`
- `verify_workshop_structure.txt`
- `verify_technical_accuracy_workshop.txt`
- `verify_technical_accuracy_demo.txt`
- `verify_accessibility_compliance_workshop.txt`
- `verify_accessibility_compliance_demo.txt`
- `verify_content_quality.txt`

**Reference examples**:
- `content/modules/ROOT/pages/workshop/example/`
- `content/modules/ROOT/pages/demo/`