# Doc Review > Independent dual-backend review of the project's MD doc set for drift, contradictions, dead pointers, and bloat. Sends CLAUDE.md + every README*.md to Gemini AND Codex in parallel; synthesizes findings into a single report. Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/doc-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/doc-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/doc-review/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/doc-review --- # Doc-review (periodic doc hygiene) Send the project's full markdown documentation surface to Gemini AND Codex in parallel for an independent challenge. Synthesize the two reviews into a single findings report. The user decides which findings to act on. ## When to use After significant docs or code edits that change the documentation surface — `/init` of a new project, a feature that touched multiple files, a noticeable CLAUDE.md or README growth spurt. Not every session. ## Steps 1. **Gather the MD set.** From the project root: ```sh ls CLAUDE.md README*.md 2>/dev/null find docs -maxdepth 2 -name '*.md' 2>/dev/null ``` Most projects: just `CLAUDE.md` plus zero or more `README*.md` at the root. Adapt if the project uses a `docs/` folder. If only `CLAUDE.md` exists, the review is still useful — focus on bloat and drift-vs-code. 2. **Send to BOTH backends in PARALLEL** in a single tool-call batch — `mcp__gemini-cli__ask-gemini` and `mcp__codex__codex` with the SAME files and the SAME prompt: > Review the attached project documentation set. For each finding, output `{category, file:line, what's wrong, suggested fix}`. Categories: > > 1. **Drift** — claims that no longer match the code or each other (verify against actual source where you can) > 2. **Contradictions** — places where two docs disagree > 3. **Dead pointers** — references to files, functions, or READMEs that don't exist > 4. **Bloat** — content that should be extracted into a dedicated `README-.md` per the rule-index-not-encyclopedia pattern (sections >~30 lines, file structure tables, detailed pipeline descriptions inside CLAUDE.md) > 5. **Underdocumented gotchas** — code patterns that look important but aren't called out > > Be specific and concise. Do not propose stylistic rewrites — only substantive issues. 3. **Backend fallback.** If a backend is unavailable per `.claude/rules/delegation.md`, run with whichever is available and note the missing one in the synthesis. If both Gemini and Codex are down, fall back to the Claude subagent (`summarizer`) — but flag clearly that this is a single-backend review, not the intended independent challenge. 4. **Synthesize.** Merge both reports into a single output, grouped by category. For each finding: - Note whether **both** backends flagged it (high-confidence) or **one** (consider the other's framing) - Preserve the file:line reference - Keep the suggested fix terse — one or two lines 5. **Report only.** Do NOT auto-apply fixes. Present the synthesis to the user; they choose which to act on. ## Rules - **Parallel, not sequential.** Issue both backend calls in one message — half the wall time and avoids one backend's framing biasing the other. - The **synthesis** is the value. Don't dump raw outputs from each backend; the merged view is what the user reads. - Avoid stylistic noise. The review targets substantive drift/contradiction/bloat, not prose taste. - If both backends fail, say so and stop. Don't let the skill silently degrade to a self-review — the whole point is *independent* challenge. --- > Source: [poma-ai/megavibe](https://github.com/poma-ai/megavibe) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).