Background: Upper-limb impairment is a major cause of post-stroke disability, limiting participation in meaningful activities. Robotic rehabilitation may address this by delivering high-dosage, task-oriented training while reducing clinician workload. However, limited clinical translation of robotic interventions may be partly due to poor reporting in the literature. This systematic review evaluated the intervention-reporting quality (completeness and consistency) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robotic and conventional upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. Methods: Four databases were searched for RCTs investigating robotic upper-limb interventions compared with dose-matched conventional interventions for people with stroke. Intervention reporting was assessed using the TIDieR-Rehab checklist. Trained reviewers independently extracted and evaluated data, resolving discrepancies through consensus. Completeness and consistency were analyzed descriptively. Results: Among 25 RCTs, the overall reporting completeness was low (43%). Robotic interventions were better described (50%) than conventional interventions (36%). While timing and total dose were commonly reported, critical details on provider expertise, active dose, progressive challenge, personalization, and harms were often omitted. Reporting consistency was moderate (68%), with key information dispersed across article sections. Conclusions: Inadequate reporting limits the transparency, replication, and implementation of robotic upper-limb interventions. Adopting structured reporting frameworks like TIDieR-Rehab is essential for advancing the field.