AgentSkillsCN

doc-review

建立文档审查知识库。涵盖技术规格审查、文档审计、文档重构等内容。结合 Codex MCP,助力 .md 文档的审查工作。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: doc-review
description: Document review knowledge base. Covers tech spec review, document audit, document refactoring. Codex MCP integration for .md reviews.
allowed-tools: mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, Bash(git:*), Read, Grep, Glob
context: fork
agent: Explore

Document Review Skill

Trigger

  • Keywords: review doc, document review, tech spec review, review-spec, doc-refactor, streamline doc

When NOT to Use

  • Code review (use codex-code-review)
  • Test coverage review (use test-review)
  • Just want to read a document (use Read directly)

Commands

CommandDescriptionUse Case
/codex-review-docCodex reviews .md docsDocument changes
/review-specReview tech specSpec confirmation
/doc-refactorStreamline documentsDoc too long
/update-docsResearch & update docsAfter code change

Workflow: /codex-review-doc

code
Determine target → Read content → Codex review (5 dimensions) → Rating table + Gate → Loop if Needs revision

Step 1: Determine Target File

ConditionAction
Path specifiedUse that path directly
No pathAuto-detect: git modified .md → staged .md → new .md
Multiple filesList and ask user which to review

Step 2: Read File Content

Read target file, save as FILE_CONTENT.

Step 3: Codex Review

First review: mcp__codex__codex with doc review prompt. See @references/codex-prompt-doc.md.

Config: sandbox: 'read-only', approval-policy: 'never'

Save the returned threadId.

Loop review: mcp__codex__codex-reply with re-review template. See @references/review-loop-doc.md.

Step 4: Consolidate Output

Organize results into rating table + severity-grouped findings + gate.

Review Dimensions

DimensionChecks
Architecture DesignSystem boundaries, responsibilities, dependencies, extensibility
PerformanceBottlenecks, concurrency, caching, resource usage
SecurityData leakage, access control, input validation, error handling
Documentation QualityStructure, completeness, accuracy, examples, docs-writing standards
Code ConsistencyPseudocode matches codebase, referenced files exist, technical accuracy

Review Loop

⚠️ @CLAUDE.md auto-loop: fix → re-review → ... → ✅ PASS ⚠️

⛔ Needs revision → fix 🔴 items → /codex-review-doc --continue <threadId> → repeat until ✅ Mergeable.

Max 3 rounds. Still failing → report blocker.

Verification

  • Each issue tagged with severity (🔴/🟡/⚪)
  • Gate is clear (✅ Mergeable / ⛔ Needs revision)
  • Codex verified code-documentation consistency independently

Required Actions

Change TypeMust Execute
.md docs/codex-review-doc or /review-spec
Tech spec/review-spec
README/codex-review-doc

References

  • Doc review prompt: references/codex-prompt-doc.md
  • Review loop: references/review-loop-doc.md
  • Standards: @rules/docs-writing.md

Examples

code
Input: /codex-review-doc docs/features/xxx/tech-spec.md
Action: Read file → Codex doc prompt → Rating table + Findings + Gate

Input: /codex-review-doc
Action: Auto-detect changed .md → Codex doc prompt → Rating table + Gate

Input: Review this tech spec for me
Action: /review-spec → Check completeness/feasibility/risks → Output Gate

Input: This document is too long, streamline it
Action: /doc-refactor → Tabularize + Mermaid → Output comparison