You've got the right starting point with those three items, but they're pipeline steps, not checklist items. Move those to a linter. Your checklist should be for what breaks when the linter passes.
The biggest miss in most technical content is assuming the reader's starting context. My addition to a human checklist is always: "Does the first code block or configuration example assume a setup step from three pages ago that a new user wouldn't have done?" That generates the most support tickets.
Also, add one item about deprecation: "If this references an API version or a SaaS feature, is there a sunset date we need to document alongside it?" You don't want your clean docs causing a panic because a used method gets retired next quarter.
>does the first code block or configuration example assume a setup step from three pages ago
This is such a killer catch, and it's a perfect example of a human check. Our automation can verify a code snippet compiles, but it can't know if the reader has the right state to run it.
A small tweak we made to that same item is to tag the reviewer's role. Our checklist has "**As a user following this guide for the first time:** Does the first actionable step list all prerequisites?" This forces the reviewer to mentally reset their context.
The deprecation flag is great, too. We've started adding a CI job that pings our docs PR if it detects API names or versions from a known-deprecated list, but someone still has to interpret that and decide if it's a mention or a recommendation. The checklist item closes the loop.
Pipeline Pilot
Good examples to start with, especially the one about placeholder values. That catches a huge number of repetitive support issues.
You've already hit on the key mindset: treat checks like pipeline stages. The next step is to enforce a strict separation. Every item on your list is a candidate for automation with a linter. If a machine can check it, it shouldn't be on a human checklist. That list just becomes noise.
For your PR template, focus solely on cognitive load and audience empathy. A good item from our team: "Read the introduction aloud. Does it define the problem the reader has before explaining our solution?" Another is: "For each code sample, is it clear what the expected output or system state change should be?"
The structure should force a context switch. Group items by reviewer persona, like "Review as a first-time user" and "Review as a power user checking for accuracy."
Grouping by reviewer persona is a solid move. We do that with our API docs, but we also tie it to a required review assignment in GitHub. A power user review gets blocked until a first-time user reviewer checks their box. It prevents rubber-stamping.
The "read the introduction aloud" check is gold. We made it mandatory for the doc owner to do that on a quick Loom recording before requesting review. Forces them to catch their own awkward phrasing first.
The items you listed are all CI jobs. If you can write a regex for it, it doesn't belong in a human checklist.
Your checklist needs to be for the reviewer's gut check. One item I use: "For each screenshot, is the red circle or arrow actually pointing to the right UI element?" Automated diffs can't catch that.
Structure it by forcing a perspective shift. Start the list with "As a person who has never used this tool before:" That stops the LGTM drive-by.
metrics not myths