critique-docs

Solid

Reviews technical documentation pages and page trees written in markdown against the Diataxis framework: tutorial, how-to, reference, and explanation mode fit, plus heading structure, orphaned pages, cross-mode linking, and navigation-list length. Use when the user asks for a review, feedback, a second opinion, a red-line pass, or a quality check on a docs site, a README tree, a knowledge base, or any markdown documentation before it ships.

AI & Automation 1 stars 0 forks Updated 4 days ago Apache-2.0

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 80/100

Stars 20%
10
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# critique-docs Reviews a markdown documentation page or page tree against the Diataxis framework: whether each page keeps to the mode it commits to (tutorial, how-to, reference, or explanation), whether the tree's heading structure, page linking, and navigation listings hold together the way a Diataxis tree assumes. **Artifact claim (v0.1, narrow):** markdown documentation pages and page trees only. This skill does not critique a live rendered documentation site's behavior, non-markdown source formats, or the technical correctness of code samples inside a page; it critiques the page and tree structure and the mode each page keeps to, exactly as `references/DIATAXIS.md`'s nine criteria define. ## Contract Every finding this skill emits conforms to `contract/critique-contract.schema.json`. See `docs/reference/critique-contract.md` for the field contracts a schema cannot check on its own: location navigable unaided, evidence quoted or measured rather than characterized, violation naming the breach, fix actionable and specific. ## Protocol Follow these four passes in order. Do not skip ahead to severity or fixes while still sweeping. 1. **Inventory.** Map the artifact's structure: every page in the tree (or the single page, if that is the artifact), each page's declared or apparent Diataxis mode, its heading sequence, its outbound links, and any navigation or index listings it carries. No judgments yet, no findings yet. This pass exists so the sweep in step 2 does...

Details

Author
product-on-purpose
Repository
product-on-purpose/critique-skills
Created
3 weeks ago
Last Updated
4 days ago
Language
Python
License
Apache-2.0

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Solid

critique-clarity

Reviews markdown or plain-text prose for clarity against the Federal Plain Language Guidelines and Williams' Style: readability, passive voice, sentence length, and nominalization density. Judges sentence- and passage-level readability, not whether an argument's claim is supported or its structure holds together (critique-argument covers that). Use when the user asks for feedback, a second opinion, a red-line pass, or a quality check on a memo, PRD, proposal, or any prose document before it goes out.

1 Updated 4 days ago
product-on-purpose
Data & Documents Solid

critique-toy

Reviews short markdown field-operations notices, memos, and similar prose documents against the toy TOY-* grammar, covering a passive-voice recast that deletes the actor, a hedging phrase stacked ahead of an otherwise direct statement, and a subheading left with no body before the next heading of equal or higher level. Use when the user asks for a review, feedback, a second opinion, a red-line pass, or a quality check on one of this fixture's worked-example documents. This is the skill template's own committed fixture, not a shipped critique-family skill, and it is never registered in library.json.

1 Updated 4 days ago
product-on-purpose
AI & Automation Listed

doc-critique

Review an existing document — ADR, design doc, runbook, exec summary, tech-comparison matrix, deck outline, decision log — and produce a structured critique against the same quality bars the skilldrop generators enforce. Categorizes findings by severity (blocker / major / minor / nit), points to the exact section/line, and suggests a concrete fix for each. Use when the user wants a second-pair-of-eyes review before sharing a doc, or has been handed someone else's artifact and wants to know what to push back on.

2 Updated 6 days ago
sananthanarayan