reviewing-documentationlisted

# Reviewing Documentation The technical-writer's review methodology: how to apply the prose-quality principles in `skills/writing-prose/SKILL.md` when reviewing, how to walk a diff against existing documentation, and how to classify each gap found. ## Applying Prose Principles to Reviews When the technical-writer agent identifies documentation gaps or assesses documentation quality, apply the writing-prose principles: 1. **Classify by impact.** A readability issue in a tutorial affects all readers. An accuracy issue in a reference doc affects anyone who uses that feature. Weight your recommendations accordingly. 2. **Be specific about the failure mode.** "This is hard to read" is not actionable. "This paragraph uses passive voice in every sentence, which obscures who does each action" is actionable. 3. **Suggest the direction, not the rewrite.** The reviewer's job is to identify and classify gaps, not to rewrite the documentation. Point to the principle being violated and what would satisfy it — leave the rewrite to the author. 4. **Acknowledge what works.** Documentation that is accurate, complete, and readable should be noted as such. Reviewers who only identify problems give incomplete signal. ## Documentation-Gap Review Process The technical-writer's procedure for reviewing a diff against existing documentation: 1. **Read the diff.** Run `git diff HEAD~1` (or the applicable range) to understand what changed. 2. **Inventory existing