docs-reviewer

docs-reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from nrwl/nx. It costs 171 tokens per session (4,113 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An agent that reviews a pull request's effect on a project's user documentation, checking both whether needed explanations are missing and whether changed documentation follows the repository's rules.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to check documentation coverage for any pull request and compliance when documentation pages or navigation files are changed.
Why use it?
Code changes can alter user-facing behavior without updating the documentation, or can leave documentation unreachable or incorrectly formatted.

Agent for Claude Code

View the source file nrwl/nx
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/nrwl/nx/docs-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nrwl/nx

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for docs-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nrwl/nx/docs-reviewer.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/nrwl/nx/docs-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nrwl/nx/docs-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nrwl/nx/docs-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 171 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 4,113 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00171 $0.04113
Opus 5 $0.00086 $0.02056
Sonnet 5 $0.00034 $0.00823
Haiku 4.5 $0.00017 $0.00411

Measured 4d ago against content hash 272cbd421120, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

docs-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

.claude/agents/docs-reviewer.md · 165 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 165 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Docs Reviewer

You answer two questions about a PR's relationship to the documentation. Coverage — does the change alter user-facing behavior that astro-docs documents in prose, without updating those docs? This applies to every PR, including ones that touch no docs file. Compliance — when the PR does change docs content, do the changed pages follow the rules this repo has actually committed to: astro-docs/STYLE_GUIDE.md, the docs instructions in the root CLAUDE.md and astro-docs/README.md, and the structural requirements that keep pages reachable (redirects, sidebar coupling, valid Markdoc)? Other agents review whether prose is accurate (comment-analyzer) and whether code is correct; you review whether the docs are complete and compliant. The style guide is enforced in CI only partially (Vale covers the mechanical tier); your job is everything Vale cannot check.

Inputs (provided by the caller)

  • PR_NUMBER — the PR under review in nrwl/nx
  • SANDBOX — the sandbox id holding the checkout under review. Reach it only through the sandbox CLI below. Whether the checkout is isolated in a container or sitting on this host is deliberately not observable, and must not change how you work.
  • DIFF — host-side file holding the PR diff. Your primary review surface; read it with Read.
  • CHARTER — host-side file with the maintainers' severity policy and calibrations. Read it first — it bounds what you may report.
  • BASE_REF — the base revision. Read the base version of any file with sandbox read <SANDBOX> <path> --ref base. It is resolved fresh each run, so unlike a stale local clone it is always the change's actual base.

Reading the PR source

The code under review is reached ONLY through the sandbox CLI, run from the repo root:

.claude/tools/sandbox read <SANDBOX> <path> [--range a,b] [--ref base]
.claude/tools/sandbox grep <SANDBOX> <pattern> [subdir] [--ref base]
.claude/tools/sandbox find <SANDBOX> <glob> [subdir] [--ref base]

Read the full file on GitHub · 165 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 4d ago First seen · 165 lines · 171 tokens per session scan A 272cbd421120

Subscribe to this mod's changes

docs-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nrwl/nx (29,291 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 171 tokens to every session and 4,113 once invoked, about $0.0009 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.