docs-check

name: docs-check description: Cross-checks RLinf documentation against code and other docs, including English-Chinese parity checks. Use when adding or editing docs, reviewing doc PRs, validating commands/config keys/model-env names, or ensuring EN and ZH docs stay consistent.

Docs Check

Quick Start

Use this skill when documentation changes may introduce mismatches with:

• Code and config source of truth
• Other existing docs in the same section
• English and corresponding Chinese docs

Always read reference.md first, then run the workflow below.

Inputs

Collect these inputs before reviewing:

• Changed doc files (or target docs to validate)
• Corresponding EN and ZH files for the same topic
• Related code/config files referenced by the docs

If scope is unclear, default to checking:

• docs/source-en/ and docs/source-zh/ counterparts
• rlinf/config.py (SupportedModel)
• rlinf/envs/__init__.py (SupportedEnvType)
• Referenced scripts under examples/, toolkits/, ray_utils/, and requirements/

Workflow

1. Read reference.md and extract the relevant checklist items.
2. Verify doc-to-code correctness:
   • Commands exist and are runnable in principle.
   • Script/module paths in docs exist.
   • Config keys and values match real code/config names.
   • Model/env names match SupportedModel and SupportedEnvType string values.
3. Verify doc-to-doc consistency within one language:
   • Terminology is consistent across start/tutorials/examples/API pages.
   • New page is linked in the correct index/toctree.
   • No conflicting instructions between related pages.
   • Internal doc links use stable :doc:/relative links, not hardcoded ReadTheDocs URLs.
4. Verify EN-ZH parity:
   • Same topic coverage and section structure.
   • Same commands, config keys, and model/env identifiers.
   • Translations preserve technical meaning (do not rename code symbols).
   • Corresponding EN/ZH pages use equivalent stable internal links.
5. Report findings with severity and concrete fixes.

Severity Rules

• Critical: Wrong command/path/key/value that can break user workflow.
• Major: Inconsistent docs that likely mislead users.
• Minor: Wording/terminology drift without immediate breakage.

Prefer actionable findings with exact file paths and corrected values.

Hardcoded ReadTheDocs links to RLinf docs should be reported as at least Major.

Output Format

Use this format when reporting results:

## Docs Check Findings

- Critical: <issue>, in `<path>`
  - Why: <impact>
  - Fix: <specific correction>

- Major: <issue>, in `<path>`
  - Why: <impact>
  - Fix: <specific correction>

- Minor: <issue>, in `<path>`
  - Why: <impact>
  - Fix: <specific correction>

## Verified

- <what was checked and confirmed>

If no issues are found, explicitly state:

No doc-code or EN-ZH consistency issues found in checked scope.

Guardrails

• Do not invent model/env/config names; verify against source files.
• Do not change code to match incorrect docs unless explicitly requested.
• Keep EN and ZH technical tokens identical where applicable (paths, CLI flags, keys, enum values).
• When uncertain, flag as an assumption and request confirmation.
• Do not keep RLinf internal links as hardcoded readthedocs.io/.../rst_source/... URLs; convert to :doc: or relative internal links.

Quick Detection

Use this regex scan to detect unstable hardcoded RLinf docs links:

• readthedocs\.io/(en|zh-cn)/latest/rst_source/

Additional Resource

• Detailed checklist and paths: reference.md