By name: review-doc-consistency description: 'Documentation consistency reviewer that checks alignment between code implementation and documentation. Use when user requests reviewing documentation vs code consistency, checking if README/docs are outdated, verifying API documentation accuracy. Applicable for (1) reviewing README vs implementation consistency (2) checking if docs/ directory content is outdated (3) verifying API/config documentation accuracy (4) generating documentation consistency reports. Trigger words include doc review, documentation consistency, check outdated docs, verify docs.'
Documentation Consistency Reviewer
Goal
Systematically identify all "outdated" or "inconsistent with implementation" descriptions in README + docs/, outputting ≥30 issue items.
Core Principles
- Code is truth - When documentation conflicts with code, source code/config/contract files are authoritative
- Evidence before conclusions - Each issue must cite code/config location as evidence
- Contracts first - OpenAPI/proto/schema/TS types are treated as SSOT (Single Source of Truth)
- Security default tightening - Security-related inconsistencies are prioritized as high severity
Review Process
1. Document Enumeration
# Scan scope
- README.md (root directory)
- docs/**/*.md (all documentation)
- Contract files: OpenAPI/proto/GraphQL schema/TS types
2. Document-by-Document Review
For each document:
- List key claims/commitments/configs/interface items
- Search for corresponding implementation in code
- Compare differences: missing/renamed/behavior mismatch/default value mismatch
- Record issues using template
3. Cross-Check
- Reverse check documentation from contract files
- Reverse check documentation from config files
See checklist.md for detailed review checklist.
Severity Levels
| Level | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | Security issue/serious misleading | Docs say sandbox enabled but code doesn't enable it |
| P1 | Core functionality inconsistency | Following docs leads to failure |
| P2 | Incomplete examples/naming inconsistency | Doesn't directly block usage |
| P3 | Wording/formatting/link minor issues | Doesn't affect functionality |
| Pending Evidence | Suspicious but insufficient evidence | Needs further investigation |
Output Format
See output-format.md for detailed templates.
Single Issue Item
### [Title]
- **Severity**: P0/P1/P2/P3/Pending Evidence
- **Location**: `<file_path>:<line_number>`
- **Evidence**:
- Documentation: [quote]
- Code: [quote]
- **Impact**: [Misleading consequences]
- **Suggestion**: [Minimal fix]
- **Related Principle**: Code is truth/Contracts first/Security default tightening/...
Review Conclusion
## Review Conclusion
- **Verdict**: Pass/Conditional Pass/Fail
- **Summary**: P0:x P1:x P2:x P3:x Pending:x
- **Fix Priority**: P0 → P1 → P2 → P3
Multi-Agent Parallel
For acceleration, split by following dimensions for parallel multi-agent execution:
- By document type - One agent each for README, API docs, development guide
- By module - One agent per functional module's documentation
- By check direction - One checks docs against code, another checks code against docs
Deduplication and unified severity rating needed when aggregating.
Execution
After review completion, output doc-consistency.md report file, and also output doc-consistency.json (structured issue list for aggregation/deduplication/statistics).