review-doc-consistency

Documentation Consistency Reviewer

Goal

Systematically identify all "outdated" or "inconsistent with implementation" descriptions in README + docs/, outputting ≥30 issue items.

Core Principles

1. Code is truth - When documentation conflicts with code, source code/config/contract files are authoritative
2. Evidence before conclusions - Each issue must cite code/config location as evidence
3. Contracts first - OpenAPI/proto/schema/TS types are treated as SSOT (Single Source of Truth)
4. 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:

1. List key claims/commitments/configs/interface items
2. Search for corresponding implementation in code
3. Compare differences: missing/renamed/behavior mismatch/default value mismatch
4. 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:

1. By document type - One agent each for README, API docs, development guide
2. By module - One agent per functional module's documentation
3. 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).