docs-review
Review Metabase Documentation Changes
Documentation PRs can drift from the Metabase style guide and create unclear guidance for readers. This skill checks changes for tone, structure, formatting, links, examples, and useful review feedback.
Install with my Agent
Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.
Review the Skillstore skill "docs-review" from https://skillstore.io/skills/metabase-docs-review.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/metabase-docs-review/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.
Agent-readable resources
Use these links when an AI agent, crawler, or script needs clean context instead of reading the full page.
Test it
Using "docs-review". A Markdown page uses formal wording, a vague heading, and a link labeled here.
Expected outcome:
- Issue 1: Formal tone. The sentence can be more conversational and direct.
- Issue 2: Vague heading. Rename the heading to state the task or outcome.
- Issue 3: Weak link text. Replace here with descriptive link text.
Using "docs-review". A PR changes several docs pages with inconsistent lists and unclear command order.
Expected outcome:
- Issue 1: Inconsistent list formatting. Use the same list structure for parallel steps.
- Issue 2: Commands out of order. Present commands in the sequence readers should run them.
Security Audit
SafeStatic findings are false positives caused by Markdown backticks, a relative include for a shared style guide, and PR review formatting instructions. No malicious intent, prompt injection, data exfiltration, or unsafe command execution was found in SKILL.md.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (13)
📁 Filesystem access (1)
Share & cite this report
Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.
Copy report link
https://skillstore.io/skills/metabase-docs-review/audits/11?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown badge
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/metabase-docs-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML badge
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/metabase-docs-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/metabase-docs-review/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>Embed card
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/metabase-docs-review.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>Academic citations (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA citation
metabase. (2026). docs-review security audit report (audit version 11) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/metabase-docs-review/audits/11BibTeX citation
@techreport{metabase-metabase-docs-review-2026,
author = {metabase},
title = {docs-review security audit report (audit version 11)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {11},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/metabase-docs-review/audits/11},
note = {Author version unspecified}
}CITATION.cff
cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "docs-review security audit report (audit version 11)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "metabase"
date-released: "2026-07-09"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/metabase-docs-review/audits/11"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:metabase-docs-review:audit:11"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore Score
Why this score Evidence Confidence: HighWhat You Can Build
Review documentation pull requests
Check a documentation PR for style guide violations before it is merged.
Improve technical writing drafts
Find unclear headings, formal tone, weak link text, and verbose paragraphs in Markdown changes.
Standardize contributor feedback
Produce numbered, actionable issues that contributors can resolve one by one.
Try These Prompts
Review this documentation file with the docs-review skill and list only issues that would materially improve the reader experience.
Use docs-review on the current Markdown diff. Number every issue and include a short suggested fix for each one.
Review this documentation PR with docs-review. If GitHub review tools are available, post numbered comments as one non-blocking pending review.
Use docs-review across all changed documentation files. Group only high-value issues, preserve sequential numbering, and avoid summary-only feedback.
Best Practices
- Provide the relevant diff or files so the review can cite precise locations.
- Ask for material issues only to avoid noisy style feedback.
- Keep the numbered issue format when replying to or resolving feedback.
Avoid
- Do not use it as a general code security or architecture reviewer.
- Do not ask it to enforce preferences outside the Metabase style guide without clear instructions.
- Do not post PR comments without confirming that GitHub review tools and permissions are available.