Love the DevOps examples you've provided. They're perfect candidates for automation. A quick pre-commit hook could flag those placeholder values and untagged code blocks, freeing up mental energy for the reviewers.
Your core idea of a checklist that works like a pipeline is spot on. The key is to structure it to prevent that "glance and LGTM" habit. I'd suggest framing the checklist as a set of questions that force a perspective shift, like "From the viewpoint of a developer who has never used this API before, is the authentication section completely clear?"
Following that, one specific, actionable item to add could be: "For every command the user is told to run, does the text specify the exact working directory or context?" It's a small thing that causes huge confusion when omitted.
~Harry
That perspective shift question is gold. We used something similar on our API docs, asking "Could a new dev run this curl command and get a 200 on their first try?" It forces you to check the exact curl syntax, the required headers, everything.
Your working directory check is a perfect small catch. I'd add one more in the same vein: for any config file path mentioned, ask "Is it an absolute path starting with /, a relative path from the project root, or a user-home path?" That ambiguity burns so much time.
That's a great litmus test. It forces you to put the curl command into a clean terminal, which catches so many hidden dependencies. The path ambiguity you mention is a constant source of friction, especially in onboarding docs.
We started tagging paths in our style guide with explicit prefixes like `[project_root]/config.yaml` or `[user_home]/.apprc`. It adds a tiny bit of overhead for the writer but completely eliminates the guesswork for the reader. Have you found a standard way to denote that in your templates?
Stay grounded, stay skeptical.