| name | whole-reviewer |
| description | Post-editing validation for Whole documentation. Use when: (1) After completing edits, (2) Before marking task complete, (3) Validating cross-reference updates, (4) Verifying bilingual consistency, (5) Final quality check. |
| version | 2.1.0 |
| license | MIT |
| allowed-tools | Grep, Read, Bash, Task |
| metadata | [object Object] |
Whole Content Reviewer
Purpose
Validate all changes meet quality standards before completion.
Integration with Agents
When to Invoke Agents
Use Task tool to invoke specialized validation agents:
// For comprehensive content validation
Task(subagent_type: 'whole-content-validator', prompt: 'Validate CF[N] content structure and compliance')
// For cross-reference deep analysis
Task(subagent_type: 'whole-cross-reference', prompt: 'Validate cross-references in CF[N] and build reference graph')
// For complex translation validation
Task(subagent_type: 'whole-translator', prompt: 'Review bilingual consistency and cultural adaptation in CF[N]')
When NOT to Use Agents
- Simple format checks → Use validation scripts in
scripts/ - Basic concept counting → Use Grep directly
- Quick structure validation → Run scripts first (faster)
- Single cross-reference check → Manual verification
Review Checklist
Content Integrity
- No content deleted without approval
- All additions follow 4-point structure (minimum 4, can have more)
- Bilingual format consistent (
#### **[num]. English - Tiếng Việt**) - Use whole-content-validator agent for automated checks
Cross-Reference Integrity
- All refs updated bidirectionally (A→B requires B→A)
- No orphaned refs
- Correct format used (
→ **Liên kết:**) - Use whole-cross-reference agent for graph analysis
Quality Standards
- Vietnamese culturally authentic (not literal translation)
- English conceptually precise
- Examples relevant and clear
- Use whole-translator agent for terminology consistency
Verification Protocol
Phase 1: Automated Validation
Run validation scripts:
# Comprehensive validation (recommended first)
node .claude/skills/whole-regrouper/scripts/validate-regroup.js [funcNum]
# Detailed validation suite
node .claude/skills/whole-editor/scripts/validate-structure.js [funcNum]
node .claude/skills/whole-editor/scripts/bilingual-check.js [funcNum]
node .claude/skills/whole-editor/scripts/check-cross-refs.js [funcNum]
Phase 2: Agent-Based Deep Analysis
For complex validations or after major edits:
- Invoke whole-content-validator - Get comprehensive validation report
- Invoke whole-cross-reference - Analyze reference graph and connectivity
- Invoke whole-translator (if needed) - Review terminology consistency
Phase 3: Manual Review
- Compare before/after sections
- Validate each change type
- Check cross-ref consistency
- Verify bilingual alignment
- Confirm structure preservation
Report Format
# Review Report: CHỨC NĂNG [N]
## Changes Applied
- Additions: [N] concepts
- Modifications: [N] concepts
- Cross-ref updates: [N] links
- Groups reorganized: [N] groups
## Automated Validation Results
### Scripts Executed:
- ✅ validate-regroup.js: PASS (0 issues)
- ✅ validate-structure.js: PASS (0 issues)
- ✅ bilingual-check.js: PASS (0 issues)
- ⚠️ check-cross-refs.js: WARNING (2 orphaned refs)
### Agent Validation:
- ✅ **whole-content-validator**: PASS
- 15 concepts validated
- 23 cross-references checked
- 0 critical issues, 2 warnings
- ⚠️ **whole-cross-reference**: WARNINGS
- 5 orphaned references (fix recommended)
- Reference graph: 3 high-connectivity concepts identified
- No broken links
## Manual Validation Results
- ✅ Content integrity preserved
- ✅ Cross-ref format correct
- ✅ Quality standards met
## Issues Found
### Critical (Must fix before commit):
*None*
### Warnings (Fix recommended):
1. CF[N] Concept 5 → CF12 Concept 3 missing reciprocal link
2. CF[N] Concept 8 → CF25 Concept 1 missing reciprocal link
### Info:
- 3 high-connectivity concepts could benefit from additional cross-domain links
## Recommendations
1. Add reciprocal cross-references for orphaned links
2. Consider strategic link additions suggested by whole-cross-reference agent
3. Review terminology consistency in next editing session
## Approval Status
✅ **APPROVED** (with warnings - fix in next session)
---
**Reviewer**: whole-reviewer v2.1.0
**Validation Scripts**: v1.0.0
**Agents Invoked**: whole-content-validator, whole-cross-reference
**Date**: [timestamp]
Agent Integration Guide
whole-content-validator
When to use: After any edit to validate structure, bilingual format, and compliance
Command: Task(subagent_type='whole-content-validator', prompt='Validate CF[N]')
Expected output: Comprehensive validation report with PASS/FAIL status
whole-cross-reference
When to use: When editing cross-references or need reference graph analysis
Command: Task(subagent_type='whole-cross-reference', prompt='Analyze cross-references in CF[N]')
Expected output: Reference graph, orphaned links, strategic suggestions
whole-translator
When to use: When reviewing bilingual consistency or complex translations
Command: Task(subagent_type='whole-translator', prompt='Review terminology consistency in CF[N]')
Expected output: Translation report, terminology glossary, consistency analysis
Critical Rules
✅ MUST
- Run validation scripts before invoking agents (scripts are faster)
- Use agents for deep analysis, not simple checks
- Document agent findings in review report
- Fix critical issues before approval
- Use shared utilities from
.claude/skills/shared
❌ NEVER
- Skip validation scripts
- Approve with critical issues
- Modify content (review only)
- Invoke agents unnecessarily (prefer scripts for simple checks)