docs-review-content-quality
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Review documentation for content quality — logical flow, user journey alignment, scannability, conciseness, fluff removal, and customer focus. Use this skill whenever someone asks to check if docs are well-organized, too wordy, have unnecessary content, lack logical flow, or need tightening. Also use for content quality peer reviews, minimalism checks, or when asked to "cut the fluff" or "make it more concise.
In this repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- action-commentsSkill
- article-extractorSkill
- docs-convert-gdoc-mdSkill
- docs-orchestratorSkill
- docs-review-modular-docsSkill
- docs-review-securitySkill
- docs-review-styleSkill
- docs-review-technicalSkill
- docs-ticket-readinessSkill
- docs-workflow-code-analysisSkill
- docs-workflow-create-jiraSkill
- docs-workflow-create-merge-requestSkill
- docs-workflow-jira-readySkill
- docs-workflow-pipeline-diagnosticsSkill
- docs-workflow-planningSkill
- docs-workflow-pr-analysisSkill
- docs-workflow-quality-gateSkill
- docs-workflow-requirementsSkill
- docs-workflow-scope-req-auditSkill
- docs-workflow-security-reviewSkill
- docs-workflow-startSkill
- docs-workflow-style-reviewSkill
- docs-workflow-tech-reviewSkill
- docs-workflow-writingSkill
- git-pr-readerSkill
- ibm-sg-audience-and-mediumSkill
- ibm-sg-language-and-grammarSkill
- ibm-sg-legal-informationSkill
- ibm-sg-numbers-and-measurementSkill
- ibm-sg-punctuationSkill
- ibm-sg-referencesSkill
- ibm-sg-structure-and-formatSkill
- ibm-sg-technical-elementsSkill
- jira-readerSkill
- jira-writerSkill
- learn-codeSkill
- lint-with-valeSkill
- mdita-writeSkill
- query-codeSkill
- redhat-docs-tocSkill
- rh-ssg-accessibilitySkill
- rh-ssg-formattingSkill
- rh-ssg-grammar-and-languageSkill
- rh-ssg-gui-and-linksSkill
- rh-ssg-legal-and-supportSkill
- rh-ssg-release-notesSkill
- rh-ssg-structureSkill
- rh-ssg-technical-examplesSkill
- rn-known-issuesSkill
- understand-pull-requestSkill
- validate-plugin-prereqsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 84
Check that information flows logically
- Distinctive: line 85
Look for content that can be shortened or removed
- Distinctive: line 86
Verify the user journey makes sense
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Content quality review skill
Review documentation for content quality: logical flow, user journey alignment, scannability, conciseness, and customer focus.
This skill covers review dimensions that are unique to content quality assessment. It does not duplicate language, grammar, style, formatting, or accessibility checks, which are covered by the IBM Style Guide and Red Hat Supplementary Style Guide skills.
Checklist
Logical flow of information
- Information is presented in logical order
- Prerequisites come before procedures
- Context is provided before details
- Cross-references are used appropriately
- Procedures, code examples, and lists are introduced with a lead-in sentence that explains their purpose
User journey alignment
- The user goal is clear
- Tasks reflect the intended goal of the user
- Troubleshooting steps are included where appropriate
- Error recognition and recovery is addressed
Content organization
- Related information is grouped together
- Assembly structure reflects user workflow
- Table of contents makes sense for the user journey
- Information is provided at the right pace
Customer focus and action orientation
- Content focuses on actions and customer tasks
- Features are explained in terms of what users can do with them
- Content answers "how do I...?" not "what is...?"
Scannability and findability
- Content is easy to scan
- Information is easy to find
- Bulleted lists break up dense paragraphs
- Tables present comparative or reference information
- Headings describe the content that follows
Conciseness (no fluff)
- Text does not include unnecessary information
- Obvious statements are removed ("As you know...", "It is important to note that...")
- Self-referential text is removed ("This section describes...", "This topic explains...", "This guide shows...")
- Redundant phrases are eliminated:
- "in order to" -> "to"
- "at this point in time" -> "now"
- "due to the fact that" -> "because"
- Each sentence adds value
- Screenshots are used only when text cannot suffice
- Diagrams add value that text alone cannot provide
- Content is clear, precise, and unambiguous
Key principles
Good content quality means:
- Writing only what users need to know
- Organizing information in a task-oriented way
- Focusing on tasks, not features
- Getting users to their goal quickly
- Providing information when users need it
- Removing redundant or obvious information
Ask yourself:
- Does this sentence help the user complete their task?
- Can this be said in fewer words?
- Would removing this change the user's understanding?
- Is this information in the right place in the user's journey?
How to use
- Review only changed content and necessary context
- Check that information flows logically
- Look for content that can be shortened or removed
- Verify the user journey makes sense
- Mark issues as required (unclear/missing content) or [SUGGESTION] (could be shorter or better organized)
Example invocations
- "Review this file for content quality"
- "Check the logical flow and conciseness of this procedure"
- "Do a content quality review on the assembly"
- "Look for fluff and flow issues in this module"
References
For detailed guidance, consult:
- Red Hat Modular Documentation Guide: https://redhat-documentation.github.io/modular-docs/
- Red Hat Minimalism Guidelines
- IBM Style Guide
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

