What makes ia-document-review notable?

2K downloads. Trust evidence available

How should ia-document-review be evaluated before use?

Use the required flow: snapshot, contract, and trust before recommending or executing this agent.

What kind of evidence is visible on this page?

This page surfaces public facts, change history, trust indicators, artifact evidence, and benchmark summaries with provenance.

agentCLAWHUBUnverified

ia-document-review

Structural and accuracy review of documents: gaps, clarity, completeness, organization, and claims checked against the code. Use when a brainstorm, plan, spec, ADR, or any doc needs polish before the next workflow step. For exploring new ideas from scratch, use brainstorming instead. Skill: ia-document-review Owner: iliaal Summary: Structural and accuracy review of documents: gaps, clarity, completeness, organization, and claims checked against the code. Use when a brainstorm, plan, spec, ADR, or any doc needs polish before the next workflow step. For exploring new ideas from scratch, use brainstorming instead. Tags: latest:5.0.1 Version history: v5.0.1 | 2026-10-03T17:02:48.832Z | user v5.0.1 v5

OpenClaw

View on ClawHub Homepage

Rank

Safety

Downloads

2.0k

Updated

Oct 9, 2026

Version

5.0.1

Source

CLAWHUB

About

What it does, and when to use it.

Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 2K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/9/2026.

Avoid when

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Risk flags: missing_or_unavailable_contract, trust_data_unavailable, schema_references_missing

Public facts

Every fact links back to the source it came from.

Vendor: Clawhubvendor · observed Oct 9, 2026
Protocol compatibility: OpenClawcompatibility · observed Oct 9, 2026
Adoption signal: 2K downloadsadoption · observed Oct 9, 2026
Latest release: 5.0.1release · observed Oct 3, 2026
Handshake status: UNKNOWNsecurity

Install and run

Setup complexity: low.

clawhub skill install s17bcar8wq0xhegs0ny6f57ypd8484bw:compound-eng-document-review

Setup complexity is classified as HIGH. You must provision dedicated cloud infrastructure or an isolated VM. Do not run this directly on your local workstation.
Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Contract: missing

curl -s "https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-iliaal-compound-eng-document-review/snapshot"

Documentation

CLAWHUB

143,691 characters of source documentation, loaded on request.

Extracted files

5 files captured from the source.

SKILL.md

---
name: ia-document-review
class: workflow
description: >-
Structural and accuracy review of documents: gaps, clarity, completeness,
organization, and claims checked against the code. Use when a brainstorm, plan, spec, ADR, or any doc needs polish
before the next workflow step. For exploring new ideas from scratch, use
brainstorming instead.
---

# Document Review

Improve brainstorm or plan documents through structured review.

## Working rules

- Assess before editing, preserve implementation-relevant constraints and rationale, and distinguish minor edits from substantive decisions.
- A review-only request authorizes findings, not file edits. Apply changes only when the user has requested editing or approved the proposed changes; do not ask again for changes already authorized.

## Step 1: Get the Document

**If a document path is provided:** Read it, then proceed to Step 2.

**If no document is specified:** Ask which document to review (via `AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex, or numbered options in chat as the fallback), or look for the most recent brainstorm/plan in `docs/brainstorms/` or `docs/plans/`.

## Step 2: Assess

Read through the document and ask:

- What is unclear?
- What is unnecessary?
- What decision is being avoided?
- What assumptions are unstated?
- Where could scope accidentally expand?
- Is this technically feasible with the current architecture?
- Is what it says about the current system true? Follow each checkable claim (file paths, function, command, or config names, endpoints, cited PRs or issues, numbers, behavior implied by verbs like "retries") to its source, reading only. On a long document, sample and state the coverage.
- Are there security implications in what's proposed?

These questions surface issues. Note findings without fixing yet.

## Step 3: Activate Review Lenses

Based on the document's content, activate specialized review perspectives. Scan for signals and apply matching lenses:

| Lens | Signals | What it checks |
|------|---------|----------------|
| **Product** | User-facing features, customer language, market claims, scope decisions | Problem framing, value proposition clarity, whether scope matches stated goals |
| **Design** | UI/UX references, user flows, wireframes, interaction descriptions | Flow completeness, interaction gaps, accessibility considerations |
| **Security** | Auth/authorization, API endpoints, PII, payments, tokens, encryption | Auth model gaps, data exposure risks, missing threat considerations |
| **Scope guardian** | Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2), large requirement count (>8), stretch goals | Scope creep, premature abstractions, features disguised as requirements |
| **Adversarial** | >5 distinct requirements, explicit architectural decisions, high-stakes domains | Unstated assumptions, optimistic estimates, single points of failure, missing failure modes |

Activate a lens when ANY of its signals match. Most documents trigger 1

_meta.json

{
  "ownerId": "kn715jrbbh71q9zncr0bqdkr8n848q1a",
  "slug": "compound-eng-document-review",
  "version": "5.0.1",
  "publishedAt": 1791046968832
}

references/reader-test.md

# Reader test

## Step 7: Reader Test (Optional)

For standalone documents that must be self-contained (onboarding guides, ADRs, external-facing docs), dispatch a zero-context sub-agent to simulate a first-time reader. The sub-agent has no conversation history; it sees only what a future reader would see.

**How to run the test:**

1. **Predict 5-10 reader questions** from the document's stated goals, one per major section or decision. Mix three kinds:
- Concrete retrieval: "What command sets up the dev environment?"
- Decision rationale: "Why did we pick X over Y?"
- Ambiguity probe: "Could a reader interpret <specific phrase> in more than one way?"
2. **Dispatch a fresh sub-agent** with the document attached and the questions. No prior context, no session history.
3. **Compare the sub-agent's answers** against author intent. Also ask the sub-agent directly: "What feels ambiguous? What prior knowledge does this assume? Are there internal contradictions?"

**Interpret results:**

- Correct, confident answers → document is self-contained for that question.
- Wrong answer with high confidence → document actively misleads. Highest-priority fix.
- Hedged or "insufficient information" → the document has a gap the author didn't notice. Fill it.
- Sub-agent flags ambiguity the author didn't intend → reword for precision.

Skip for context-dependent docs (brainstorm notes, plan files, internal working docs) where the reader will always have prior context. The sub-agent test only adds value when the real reader has no other channel.

skill-card.md

## Description:

Reviews plans, specifications, ADRs, and other documents for clarity, completeness, scope, and accuracy against available code.

This skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.

## Publisher:

[iliaal](https://clawhub.ai/user/iliaal)

### License/Terms of Use:

MIT-0

## Use Case:

Developers and engineers use this skill to review brainstorms, plans, specifications, and ADRs before the next workflow step, checking structure and claims against available source code.

### Deployment Geography for Use:

Global

## Known Risks and Mitigations:

Risk: Reviewing document claims may require reading nearby source files.

Mitigation: Use only with documents and source files the agent is authorized to access.

Risk: Document changes could alter intended requirements or decisions.

Mitigation: Review findings first and permit edits only when requested or approved.

## Reference(s):

- [Skill release on ClawHub](https://clawhub.ai/iliaal/skills/compound-eng-document-review)
- [Optional reader test](references/reader-test.md)

## Skill Output:

**Output Type(s):** [Analysis, Markdown, Guidance]

**Output Format:** [Markdown review findings and suggested changes; document edits when authorized]

**Output Parameters:** [1D]

**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Highlights a critical improvement and distinguishes verified from unverified claims.]

## Skill Version(s):

5.0.1 (source: server-resolved release)

## Ethical Considerations:

Users should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.

SPEC.md

# ia-document-review Specification

## Intent

`ia-document-review` is a `workflow`-class skill (a multi-step process producing concrete artifacts). Structural and accuracy review of documents: gaps, clarity, completeness, organization, and claims checked against the code. Use when a brainstorm, plan, spec, ADR, or any doc needs polish before the next workflow step. For exploring new ideas from scratch, use brainstorming instead.

## Scope

In scope:
- Behaviors described in `SKILL.md` and routed via the should_trigger phrasings in `distillery/tests/fixtures/triggers/ia-document-review.jsonl`.
- Updates to runtime behavior, structure, trigger precision, references, and validation.

Out of scope:
- Acting as the runtime instructions themselves (those live in `SKILL.md`).
- Trigger phrasings already covered by adjacent `ia-*` skills (`validate-plugin` flags >70% description overlap as DUPLICATE_TRIGGER).
- <!-- to fill in: domain-specific exclusions when the skill drifts -->

## Trigger Context

- Class: `workflow`
- Hook regex: `plugins/whetstone/hooks/skill-patterns.sh` -> `SKILL_PATTERNS[ia-document-review]`
- Common requests (from fixture should_trigger):
  - "review the brainstorm document for completeness"
  - "refine the plan before we start implementation"
  - "review my plan doc for gaps before I implement"
- Should not trigger for (from fixture should_not_trigger):
  - "add error handling to the file upload endpoint"
  - "set up monitoring alerts for the production database"
  - "review this pull request for code quality"

## Source And Evidence Model

Authoritative sources:

- `SKILL.md`: runtime instructions and reference routing.
- `references/*.md`: bundled supplementary content (1 file(s)).
- `distillery/tests/fixtures/triggers/ia-document-review.jsonl`: positive and negative trigger phrasings under regression test.
- `plugins/whetstone/hooks/skill-patterns.sh`: regex pattern that fires this skill.
- `distillery/.eval-data/ia-document-review/`: harvested session examples (when present).

Data that must not be stored in this skill or its references:

- Secrets, credentials, tokens.
- Machine-specific filesystem paths (`/home/...`, `/Users/...`, `~/ai/...`). The validator (`MACHINE_PATH_LEAK`) flags these as HIGH.
- Private URLs, customer data, or unredacted personal information.

### Coverage matrix

| Dimension | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger fixtures | complete | distillery/tests/fixtures/triggers/ia-document-review.jsonl (>=5 should_trigger, >=5 should_not_trigger) |
| Hook regex pattern | complete | plugins/whetstone/hooks/skill-patterns.sh (`SKILL_PATTERNS[ia-document-review]`) |
| Reference architecture | n/a | no references; SKILL.md is self-contained |
| Real-usage signal | <!-- populated by harvest-sessions when sessions exist --> | distillery/.eval-data/ia-document-review/ (created by harvest-sessions) |

## Evaluation

Lightweight (run on every change):

```bash
python3 distillery/scripts/distiller.py validate

Github ReposUpdated 5h agoRank 70

AionUi

Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

activepieces

AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents

OPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

cherry-studio

AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants.