Create SKILL.MD for documentation review process

[danielmarbach]

Add guidelines for reviewing Particular Platform documentation, including language standards, style consistency, and technical accuracy.

[danielmarbach]

@dvdstelt I think you have also experimented with skills a lot. Anything missing?

[danielmarbach]

@dvdstelt done

[danielmarbach]

I would be possible to integrate this with docs flows like this one https://github.com/githubnext/agentics/blob/main/workflows/update-docs.md

[mauroservienti]

I would be possible to integrate this with docs flows like this one https://github.com/githubnext/agentics/blob/main/workflows/update-docs.md

That would be awesome

[stevedowling]

One thing that concerns me is that we could end up with the agent making change for change's sake and introducing a lot of noise into the repository. Changing language that isn't quite right in its view, but that a person would think was absolutely fine, for example. This problem could compound over time as the LLM model is updated.

I haven't used agent skills before (so this could be incorrect), but I posted my comment above into Claude, and this is what it suggested:

Suggested change

	## Conservative Change Philosophy
	**The cost of an unnecessary change is higher than the cost of a missed improvement.**
	Documentation lives in a version-controlled repository. Every change creates noise: diff churn, review burden, and the risk of introducing new errors while fixing perceived ones. This review process is optimized to catch real problems, not to impose stylistic preferences.
	### The Core Rule
	Only suggest or apply a change if it can be justified by a specific, named rule in this skill file. If a change cannot be pinned to a written rule, do not make it. Style preferences, gut feelings, and "this could be clearer" instincts that aren't grounded in a documented standard are not sufficient justification.
	### When in Doubt, Leave It Alone
	If existing text is technically correct and a reasonable professional reader would find it acceptable, do not flag it. The question is not "could this be better?" but "is this wrong by a defined standard?"
	### Consistency Beats Correctness
	If a phrasing, capitalization style, or structural pattern is used consistently throughout the existing documentation, do not flag it — even if you would have written it differently. Consistency within the corpus is more valuable than conforming to an external preference. Before flagging anything stylistic, check whether the same pattern appears elsewhere in the docs. If it does, leave it alone.
	---

[mauroservienti]

The addition makes sense. It's worth noting that Copilot will either raise suggestions during a review or open a PR; it doesn't push directly. Still, some noise remains.