---

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: author: "Whole Project" category: "documentation" updated: "2026-01-02"

---

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:

Copy// 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:

Copy# 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:

1. Invoke whole-content-validator - Get comprehensive validation report
2. Invoke whole-cross-reference - Analyze reference graph and connectivity
3. Invoke whole-translator (if needed) - Review terminology consistency

Phase 3: Manual Review

1. Compare before/after sections
2. Validate each change type
3. Check cross-ref consistency
4. Verify bilingual alignment
5. Confirm structure preservation

Report Format

Copy# 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)