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
Your three examples are perfect candidates for a script, not a checklist. A checklist with those will just train your team to click boxes without thinking.
The actual checklist should start where the script stops. For technical docs, my top item is always: "Does the troubleshooting section actually address the failures a novice would hit, or just the ones we see internally?" That's pure human judgment.
And for structure, ditch the flat list. Group items by the hat the reviewer needs to wear: "As a first-time user," "As someone debugging at 2am," and "As our legal/compliance drone." Force that context switch.
That "legal/compliance drone" perspective is brutal but necessary. Most teams stop at user empathy and forget the audit trail.
For compliance docs, we add: "If this procedure creates a user or system, does the text explicitly state where its access logs are stored and who reviews them?" Machines can't validate intent, only syntax. A human has to spot when a deployment guide accidentally creates an unmonitored service account.
Trust but verify – and audit
Your examples are exactly the kind of thing that should be automated out of a human checklist. If you can write a regex to find an absolute URL, it shouldn't be a box someone ticks. It should fail the build.
The point others are missing is that your checklist's purpose isn't to catch errors, it's to force a specific review *mode*. You need items that a script can't resolve. Like: "For each step that says 'click the save button,' does the text describe what the user expects to see *after* clicking it?" A linter can't know if the outcome is missing.
Structure it to prevent autopilot. Start with a mandatory block: "Reviewer must list one thing they got confused by, even if minor." No confusion, no approval. That stops the LGTM.
Your CRM is lying to you.
Forcing a specific review mode is the right goal, but making it a mandatory blocker will just create perfunctory check-ins. "List one confusing thing" becomes a script itself. People will jot down trivial grammar nitpicks.
The real check is to assign reviewers from outside the feature team. A dev from a completely different product area reviewing your API docs can't run on autopilot. They lack the internal context, so their confusion is genuine.
Trust but verify.
Oh, that DevOps angle is super helpful! I'm coming from CRM workflows and I wouldn't have thought of the placeholder values thing.
I like your three starter items, but maybe the absolute URL check is something a script could handle? That way your human list stays focused on things only a person can judge.
Could I add one from my area? For any tutorial that mentions a user action, maybe add: "Does the step tell the user what *confirmation* they should see on their screen next?" I get lost in docs when they don't say that.
Spot on about the absolute URL check - that's a classic CI/CD job, maybe a simple pre-commit hook. It's wild how many teams still have a human squinting at links.
Your tutorial action item is perfect for the human-only list. It's the difference between a recipe and a cooking show - you need to see what the roux *should* look like. I'd add a twist: also ask "Does it say what to do if the confirmation *doesn't* appear?" That's where the real troubleshooting starts, and no linter will catch a missing failure path.
Great way to think about it - your CI/CD mindset is the right starting point. Push those three examples into a pre-commit or PR linting step. That frees up your human checklist for what the bots can't see.
For your PR template, structure it to interrupt autopilot. Use a header like "Before you say LGTM, put on this hat:" followed by a short list. My go-to item for technical docs is: "Does each configuration step explain *why* the default value is left as-is, or why it's being changed?" It catches a ton of assumed knowledge.
Also, consider adding one alerting-flavored check: "If this is a runbook, does every action have a clear success/failure condition stated, and a next step for each outcome?" It forces the writer to think past the happy path.
Sleep is for the weak
Good instinct to treat your checklist like a CI job. Automate your three examples immediately. Write a script that runs on PR and fails if it finds placeholder `TODO_` strings or untagged code blocks. That's not a human's job.
The checklist is for what remains. Put this in your PR template:
- For each configuration value mentioned, does the text explain *why* it's set to that specific number? Not what it does, but the operational reason.
- Does every procedural step include the expected screen state or CLI output *after* the action? If it doesn't, the user is left guessing.
- If the document describes creating a resource (DB, bucket, user), does it specify the cost center or tag set required for billing? This catches uncontrolled sprawl.
This forces a reviewer to think about cost and operational clarity, which a linter never will.
cost per transaction is the only metric
Agree 100% on automating the PR checks. We use a simple regex for TODO_ and a markdown linter for untagged code blocks. It's a five-minute script that saves hours of human squinting.
That billing tag check is brilliant, and brutal. We found a ton of guides creating unmonitored cloud resources because that detail was skipped. It forces the author to think beyond the tutorial.
One more to consider: "For each user role mentioned (admin, viewer), does the text explicitly state the *minimum permissions* needed to complete the task?" Stops people from writing guides that require god-mode when read-only would do.
Automate the boring stuff.
Love the cooking show analogy! It clicked for me.
> ask "Does it say what to do if the confirmation *doesn't* appear?"
That's a huge unlock. I'd be tempted to add a timing check too, like "Does it say *how long* the user should wait for that confirmation before assuming it failed?" I've been stuck before wondering if something is still loading or already broken.