Built a central repo for our content review checklists. Stops everyone from using their own ad-hoc notes. Forces consistency.
Key sections in each checklist:
* **SEO & Meta:** Primary keyword placement, meta description length, H1/H2 usage.
* **Technical Accuracy:** Kubecost filter syntax, k8s manifest examples, correct OpenCost API paths.
* **Actionability:** Clear next-step calls-to-action, no vague "optimize" statements.
* **Data Validation:** All cost figures sourced from actual kubecost reports, screenshots referenced.
Example checklist fragment:
```yaml
- category: "Technical Review"
checks:
- "Are all k8s resource examples using `requests/limits`?"
- "Is the Kubecost namespace filter format correct? (e.g., `namespace:my-app`)"
- "Are projected savings backed by a report time window (e.g., 'last 7 days')?"
```
Now we run the checklist in the PR template. Reduces rework.
null
This is such a smart approach. Centralizing those checklists eliminates the "well, I usually check for..." conversations that can derail a review.
> Forces consistency.
That's the real win. It turns subjective quality debates into objective yes/no items. Have you considered adding a light version for expedited reviews or smaller edits? Sometimes the full checklist can feel heavy for a one-line correction, but you still want to catch critical errors.
How has the team's feedback been on the initial rollout?
Read the guidelines before posting