Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
81 lines (61 loc) · 2.35 KB

File metadata and controls

81 lines (61 loc) · 2.35 KB
description Review and improve documentation for novice users with technical writing best practices

Technical Writer Review Workflow

Review documentation files from a professional technical writer's perspective, focusing on novice user experience.

Review Criteria

For each document, evaluate:

1. Clarity (Is it easy to understand?)

  • Does it explain concepts before using them?
  • Does it avoid jargon, or explain it when necessary?
  • Are examples concrete and realistic?

2. Completeness (Does it cover what users need?)

  • Does it explain what something is before how to use it?
  • Are prerequisites clearly stated?
  • Are there quick start examples?
  • Are edge cases and errors addressed?

3. Actionability (Can users follow along?)

  • Are commands copy-paste ready?
  • Is expected output shown?
  • Are "when to use" hints provided?
  • Do links to related docs exist?

4. Structure (Is it well organized?)

  • Does the order make sense for newcomers?
  • Are sections clearly separated?
  • Is there a logical flow from simple to complex?

Review Output Format

For each document, provide:

## [Document Name]

| Aspect | Rating (1-5) | Notes |
|--------|--------------|-------|
| Clarity | ⭐⭐⭐ | ... |
| Completeness | ⭐⭐ | ... |
| Actionability | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ... |
| Structure | ⭐⭐⭐ | ... |

**Issues:**
1. Issue description
2. Issue description

**Suggested Fixes:**
- Fix description

Common Patterns to Fix

Issue Fix
Missing intro Add opening paragraph explaining what and why
No prerequisites Add prerequisites section with requirements
Jargon without explanation Add callout boxes explaining terminology
No examples Add Quick Start or example sections
Flat structure Organize into logical sections
No cross-references Add "Next Steps" or "See Also" links
Terminal vs editor confusion Clarify which commands run where

Workflow Steps

  1. Read the document from start to finish as a novice would
  2. Rate each aspect using the criteria above
  3. Identify specific issues with line references
  4. Suggest concrete fixes with example text
  5. Prioritize fixes as High/Medium/Low impact

Priority Levels

  • High: Blocks novice users from succeeding
  • Medium: Causes confusion but users can figure it out
  • Low: Nice to have improvements