Content Validation Status¶

Last updated: 2026-07-25 Method: Manual repository scan using scripts/lib/content_scope.py plus frontmatter inspection for content_validation: blocks.

What content_validation is¶

content_validation is YAML frontmatter that records the verification state of a page's core factual claims. Each in-scope factual-claim page is expected to carry a block like this:

content_validation:
  status: verified  # verified | pending_review | unverified
  last_reviewed: 2026-07-01
  reviewer: agent  # agent | human
  core_claims:
    - claim: "ACS Email total email request size (including attachments) is 10 MB, upgradable to 30 MB via support request."
      source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/communication-services/concepts/service-limits
      verified: true

The full schema and the list of in-scope directories are defined in AGENTS.md → Content Validation Scope. This status page does not redefine either.

Current coverage¶

The repository currently contains 54 markdown files with a content_validation block. Of those, 46 are in-scope (per the AGENTS.md scope policy) and 8 are out-of-scope.

Against the population of in-scope factual-claim pages, current coverage is 46 / 46 = 100%. All currently in-scope pages now carry content_validation metadata.

The out-of-scope count is called out separately because those blocks do not count toward compliance with the AGENTS.md scope policy — they are legacy metadata on reference and KQL pages that pre-date the scope formalization.

In-scope pages WITH content_validation¶

All currently in-scope pages under docs/platform/**, docs/best-practices/**, docs/operations/**, and the in-scope troubleshooting pages now carry content_validation. Coverage by section is:

In-scope pages WITHOUT content_validation¶

There are currently no in-scope factual-claim pages without content_validation metadata.

Out-of-scope pages that carry content_validation¶

These 8 pages contain a content_validation block, but they fall outside the required-by-default scope in AGENTS.md (docs/reference/** and docs/troubleshooting/kql/**). Their blocks are historical and are not counted toward in-scope coverage.

Leaving these blocks in place is intentional — the metadata is still useful as author-level notes — but they are not part of the policy-compliance calculation.

What is NOT implemented in this repository¶

To avoid overclaiming, the following pieces of the validation workflow are not present in this repository today:

• No content-validation generator script. This repository now has scripts/lib/content_scope.py, but it still does not have scripts/generate_content_validation_status.py; this page remains authored manually.
• No CI enforcement of content_validation. The repository still lacks a drift-check or validation workflow that fails when an in-scope page is missing content_validation or when this manual dashboard is stale.
• No automatic content-validation drift check. The repository has scripts/validate_content_sources.py for diagram provenance, but it does not yet have a generator/check pair for content_validation coverage.
• No dashboard drift check. Sibling guides re-run the generator in CI and fail if the checked-in dashboard is stale. Because this page is manual, that check does not apply here; stale content on this page can only be caught by human review.

The policy itself (which directories require content_validation, and the schema of the block) IS documented — see AGENTS.md → Content Validation Scope. The gap is between policy and enforcement, not between policy and existence.

How to add coverage to an in-scope page¶

1. Confirm the page is in scope by checking AGENTS.md → Content Validation Scope. Pages under docs/reference/**, docs/troubleshooting/kql/**, docs/troubleshooting/lab-guides/**, docs/sdk-guides/**, and docs/start-here/** are usually out of scope — do not add content_validation there.
2. Identify 2–5 core factual claims on the page. Each must be a specific assertion (a documented limit, a documented behavior, a documented default), not a meta-statement like "this page uses Microsoft Learn as the primary source basis."
3. Trace each claim to a Microsoft Learn URL. If a claim cannot be traced, either remove the claim from the page or set verified: false and leave the source blank.
4. Add the frontmatter block (see What content_validation is above).
5. Set status: verified only when ALL listed core_claims have verified: true AND cite Microsoft Learn URLs.
6. Update this status page in the same commit — add the page to the In-scope pages WITH content_validation table and remove it from the examples in In-scope pages WITHOUT content_validation.

Follow-up tracking¶

Coverage expansion is complete in this repository snapshot. Tooling parity with sibling guides — especially a generated content-validation-status dashboard, a tutorial-validation dashboard generator, and CI drift enforcement — remains follow-up work.

See Also¶

• AGENTS.md → Content Validation Scope — authoritative scope and schema definition
• Platform Limits — example of an out-of-scope reference page that still carries historical content_validation metadata
• Operations → Monitoring — example of an in-scope page with content_validation

Sources¶

• Azure Communication Services Documentation Home — https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/communication-services/