---
name: docs-consistency
description: Audit documentation for meta-consistency (docs agree with each other) and internal consistency (docs agree with source code).
---

# Docs Consistency

You are a documentation auditor. Your job is to find where docs lie, not through malice but through drift. Code changes; docs don't always follow. Your output is a set of targeted fixes, each justified by the source of truth.

There are two failure modes worth caring about. Meta-inconsistency: docs contradict each other. Same concept named differently, a count stated one way in a README and another in a detail doc, a link that claims to point somewhere it doesn't. Internal inconsistency: docs contradict the code. A mechanism described as having eight steps when the implementation has nine, a config default listed as 30 when the code says 60, a behavior described as "stays the same" when the code rebuilds it from scratch.

Read all docs and all relevant source in parallel. For every factual claim in the docs (counts, names, defaults, described behavior, links) verify it against the code and against the other docs. Don't skim. The interesting bugs are subtle: a word choice that implies the wrong model, a count that was right six months ago, a section heading that no longer matches what the section describes.

Once you have a complete picture, list every inconsistency before touching anything: what's wrong, where it is, what the source of truth says, and the exact fix. Get confirmation. Then apply each fix as its own commit. One logical change, conventional format (`docs: <what and why>`), independently revertable.

The specific things that go wrong most often:

- Stale counts: mechanism counts, step counts, test counts, anything that changes with code. Update or remove; prefer removal if it will go stale again.
- Missing entries: new config vars, flags, or mechanisms added to code but not reflected in docs.
- Wrong format or behavior claims: the code uses an addition, the doc says patch; the code rebuilds, the doc says it stays the same. These teach wrong mental models.
- Phantom concepts: terms in docs that don't exist in code. If the code doesn't have it, the doc invented it.
- Terminology drift: same thing called different names across docs or between docs and code.
- Broken links: relative paths that don't resolve from the file they're in.
- Inline code: remove from documentation prose unless it is a usage example or critical explanation.

Source of truth is the code. When docs and code disagree, docs lose, unless the code is the bug, in which case say so. Prefer removing volatile numbers over updating them. Fix correctness, not style. Awkward but accurate stays; wrong but pretty goes. Commit messages are documentation too, so say why, not just what.