context: fork model: sonnet

Content Verification Skill

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

Workflow Diagram

Workflow

What You'll Need Before Starting

Have these ready before running this skill:

Required:

•
📁 Path to content directory - Where your workshop/demo modules are located
- •Example: content/modules/ROOT/pages/
•📝 Content type - Know if it's a workshop (hands-on) or demo (presenter-led)

Helpful to have:

•✅ Completed modules - Verification works best on finished content
•📋 Specific concerns - Any areas you want extra validation on?
•🎯 Target audience - Who will use this content? (Affects technical depth checks)

Access needed:

•✅ Read permissions to the Showroom repository directory
•
✅ Verification prompts available in:
- •.claude/prompts/ (repo-specific prompts), or
- •~/.claude/prompts/ (global prompts), or
- •RHDP marketplace default prompts

What gets checked:

•Technical accuracy
•Accessibility compliance (A11y standards)
•Red Hat style guide compliance
•Workshop structure (modules, navigation, learning objectives)
•AsciiDoc formatting and syntax

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 0: Reference Repository Setup (OPTIONAL but Recommended)

For enhanced verification quality, access to real Showroom examples helps compare content against proven patterns.

Ask the user:

code

📚 Reference Repository Check (Optional)

For more comprehensive verification, I can compare your content against real Showroom examples.

Do you have a Showroom repository with quality content that I can use as a reference?

Options:
1. Yes - I have a local Showroom repo (Better verification quality)
2. No - Clone template to /tmp/ for me
3. Skip - Verify without reference (Standard verification only)

Your choice: [1/2/3]

If Option 1 (YES - Local repo):

code

Please provide the path to your reference Showroom repository:

Example: ~/work/showroom-content/high-quality-workshop

Path:

Validation:

•Check if path exists using Read tool
•Verify it contains quality content in content/modules/ROOT/pages/*.adoc files
•If invalid, ask again or offer Option 2

Once valid path provided:

•Read 2-3 example modules from reference repo
•
Use as comparison baseline for:
- •Section structure quality
- •Code block patterns
- •Image reference formatting
- •List formatting (blank lines)
- •External link patterns (^ caret usage)
- •Business scenario quality
- •Verification command patterns
•Enhanced verification can flag deviations from proven patterns

If Option 2 (NO - Clone template):

code

I'll clone the Showroom template repository to /tmp/showroom-reference for you.

This provides standard Showroom examples to enhance verification quality.

Proceed? [Yes/No]

If Yes:

bash

git clone https://github.com/rhpds/showroom-template /tmp/showroom-reference

Then:

•Read example modules from template
•Use as comparison baseline
•Enhanced verification against proven patterns

If No or clone fails:

•Continue with standard verification (no reference comparison)

If Option 3 (Skip):

•Proceed with standard verification
•No comparison against reference examples
•Still validates against Red Hat style guide and accessibility standards

Why Reference Repository Helps Verification:

With reference examples:

•✅ Can compare structure against proven high-quality modules
•✅ Identify deviations from successful patterns
•✅ Suggest improvements based on real examples
•✅ More specific feedback ("Reference example uses X pattern, your content uses Y")

Without reference examples:

•✓ Still validates Red Hat style guide compliance
•✓ Still checks accessibility standards
•✓ Still validates technical accuracy
•⚠️ Can't compare against proven Showroom patterns
•⚠️ Feedback is more generic

Store reference path for verification steps:

•Save reference repository path if provided
•During verification, compare content patterns against reference examples
•Include comparison findings in verification report

Step 1: Detect and Select Verification Prompts (REQUIRED)

CRITICAL: Before running verification, detect which prompt sets are available and let user choose.

Detection Priority:

•Current Git Repo: .claude/prompts/ in current repository (highest priority)
•Global Home: ~/.claude/prompts/ (user's global settings)

Prompt Detection Steps:

•
Check current directory for git repo:
bash
```
git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null
```
•
If in git repo, check for local .claude/prompts/:
bash
```
ls [repo-root]/.claude/prompts/*.txt 2>/dev/null
```
•
Check global home directory:
bash
```
ls ~/.claude/prompts/*.txt 2>/dev/null
```

If multiple locations found, ask user:

code

🔍 Found verification prompts in multiple locations:

1. Current repo: /Users/psrivast/work/showroom-content/aap-selfserv-intro-showroom/.claude/prompts/
   └─ Last updated: 13 Jan 16:01 (10 prompts)

2. Global home: ~/.claude/prompts/
   └─ Last updated: 13 Jan 14:47 (10 prompts)

Which prompts should I use for verification?

Options:
1. Current repo (use repo-specific prompts) - Recommended if customized
2. Global home (use your personal defaults)

Your choice: [1/2]

If only one location found:

code

✅ Using verification prompts from: ~/.claude/prompts/
   Last updated: 13 Jan 14:47
   Total prompts: 10

If NO prompts found:

code

❌ ERROR: No verification prompts found in any location.

Verification prompts should be in:
- Current repo: .claude/prompts/ (if repo-specific)
- Global home: ~/.claude/prompts/ (for all projects)

Please ensure verification prompts are available in one of these locations.

After user selects, confirm and show which prompts will be used:

code

📋 Using prompts from: Current repo (.claude/prompts/)

Will use these validation frameworks:
✓ enhanced_verification_workshop.txt (43K, updated 16:01)
✓ redhat_style_guide_validation.txt (5.1K, updated 16:01)
✓ verify_workshop_structure.txt (14K, updated 16:01)
✓ verify_technical_accuracy_workshop.txt (9.7K, updated 14:45)
✓ verify_accessibility_compliance_workshop.txt (10K, updated 14:47)
✓ verify_content_quality.txt (13K, updated 14:45)

Continue with verification? [Yes/No]

Step 2: 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 3: 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 4: Run Verification Agents

If reference repository was provided in Step 0:

•Read reference examples before running verification
•Compare content structure against reference patterns
•Note deviations from proven Showroom patterns
•Include reference-based feedback in verification results

Standard verification (with or without reference):

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 5: Present Results

If reference repository was used:

•Include section showing comparison against reference examples
•Highlight where content matches proven patterns
•Point out deviations with specific examples from reference
•Suggest improvements based on reference patterns

Standard results (always included):

I'll provide results in this order:

1. Detailed Issue Sections FIRST (top of output):

•Specific file locations and line numbers
•Before/after examples for each issue
•Implementation steps showing exactly how to fix
•Why each issue matters
•Grouped by issue type with exact counts

2. Validation Summary Table LAST (bottom of output):

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

3. Strengths Section (after summary table):

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

CRITICAL OUTPUT RULES:

•Summary table comes LAST, not first
•Detailed sections are at the TOP
•STOP IMMEDIATELY after strengths section
•DO NOT add any additional summaries, assessments, or recaps
•NO "Overall Assessment", NO "Quick Stats", NO "Top 3 Fixes"
•NO text after strengths - that's the END of output

The output must end with the strengths section. Nothing comes after it.

Step 6: 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:

## 3 missing verification commands
**Priority: Critical**
**Affected Files:** module-01-install-aap.adoc

### Details:

1. **Line 45, module-01-install-aap.adoc**
   - Current: Deployment step with no verification
   - Required: Add `oc get pods -n ansible-automation-platform` with expected output
   - Why: Learners can't verify deployment success
   - Fix: Add verification command after deployment step showing expected "Running" status

[... additional detailed sections for each issue ...]

---

## Validation Summary

┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ 3 missing verification commands  │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ 1 incorrect product name "OCP"   │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ 2 images missing alt text        │ Critical │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incomplete troubleshooting       │ High     │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Missing learning outcomes        │ High     │ 1 file    │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Commands lack expected output    │ Medium   │ 1 file    │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

**Total Issues:** 11 (6 Critical, 3 High, 2 Medium)

---

✅ 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

[END OF VERIFICATION OUTPUT - NOTHING AFTER THIS]

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:

## 5 title case headings found across all files
**Priority: High**
**Affected Files:** index.adoc, 01-overview.adoc, 02-details.adoc, module-01-install-aap.adoc, module-02-configure-aap.adoc

### Details:

1. **Line 12, index.adoc**
   - Current: `= Introduction To Ansible Automation Platform`
   - Required: `= Introduction to Ansible Automation Platform`
   - Why: Red Hat style guide requires sentence case
   - Fix: Lowercase "To"

[... additional detailed sections for each issue ...]

---

## Validation Summary

┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              Issue               │ Priority │   Files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Inconsistent heading styles      │ Critical │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ 4 images missing alt text        │ Critical │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ 5 title case headings            │ High     │ All files │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ 3 missing Red Hat product names  │ High     │ 3 files   │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
│ Incomplete verification commands │ Medium   │ 2 files   │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

**Total Issues:** 17 (6 Critical, 8 High, 3 Medium)
**Files Affected:** 5 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

[END OF VERIFICATION OUTPUT - NOTHING AFTER THIS]

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 with detailed sections FIRST, summary table LAST:

markdown

## 3 duplicate References sections found
**Priority: Critical**
**Affected Files:** 03-module-01.adoc, 04-module-02.adoc, 05-conclusion.adoc

### Details:

1. **Line 245, 03-module-01.adoc**
   - Current: `== References` section in module
   - Required: Remove - all references go in conclusion module only
   - Why: Multiple References sections confuse readers
   - Fix: Move references to conclusion module, delete from here

2. **Line 189, 04-module-02.adoc**
   - Current: `== References` section in module
   - Required: Remove - consolidate in conclusion
   - Why: Duplicate sections violate Red Hat doc standards
   - Fix: Copy references to conclusion, delete from module

[... additional detailed issue sections ...]

---

## Validation Summary

┌──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
│              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   │
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┘

**Total Issues:** 15 (5 Critical, 7 High, 3 Medium)
**Files Affected:** 5 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

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

## Prompt Location Strategy

**Why multiple prompt locations?**

Different repositories may need customized verification rules:
- **Global defaults** (`~/.claude/prompts/`): Your standard verification rules for all projects
- **Repo-specific** (`.claude/prompts/` in git repo): Custom rules for specific projects

**Recommended workflow:**

1. **Most repos**: Use global defaults from `~/.claude/prompts/`
   - Consistent verification across all your content
   - Easy to update centrally

2. **Special repos**: Add `.claude/prompts/` to repo if you need custom rules
   - Example: Stricter image requirements for partner content
   - Example: Relaxed rules for internal documentation
   - Example: Additional industry-specific validation

**How the skill detects prompts:**

1. Checks current git repo for `.claude/prompts/*.txt`
2. Checks global home `~/.claude/prompts/*.txt`
3. Asks you which to use if multiple locations found
4. Shows you which prompts will be used before running verification

**When to customize prompts in repo:**
- ✅ Partner content with additional requirements
- ✅ Internal docs with relaxed standards
- ✅ Testing new verification rules before global rollout
- ❌ Don't customize just to bypass quality standards

---

## 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/`