Review Process for Documentation (PR-Based)

A PR-based review Process for documentation ensures accuracy, clarity, and consistency. Learn how to structure doc reviews, create checklists, and integrate review into the documentation pipeline.

What You'll Learn

You will learn how to set up a Pull Request review process for documentation, what reviewers should check, how to handle feedback, and how to make reviews efficient and effective.

Why It Matters

Documentation without review contains errors, inconsistencies, and omissions that damage reader trust. A structured review process catches these issues before publication and spreads knowledge across the team.

Real-World Use

At DodaTech, every documentation change goes through a PR review. Reviewers check technical accuracy, clarity, style guide adherence, and formatting. The review checklist is embedded in the PR template.

flowchart LR
  A[Writer Creates PR] --> B[CI Runs Linters]
  B --> C[Assign Reviewers]
  C --> D[Review: Technical Accuracy]
  D --> E[Review: Clarity and Style]
  E --> F[Review: Formatting]
  F --> G{Changes Needed?}
  G -->|Yes| H[Writer Addresses Feedback]
  H --> C
  G -->|No| I[Approve and Merge]
  I --> J[Auto Deploy]
  A:::current
  classDef current fill:#f90,color:#fff,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px

Documentation PR Review Checklist

## Documentation Review Checklist

### Technical Accuracy
- [ ] Instructions work when followed step by step
- [ ] Code examples produce the described output
- [ ] Screenshots match the current UI
- [ ] API endpoints, parameters, and responses are correct
- [ ] Version numbers and compatibility notes are accurate

### Clarity
- [ ] Page has a clear title and description
- [ ] First paragraph explains what the page covers
- [ ] Technical terms are defined or linked to glossary
- [ ] Steps are in logical order
- [ ] No unexplained jargon or acronyms

### Style Guide
- [ ] Follows project style guide (voice, tone, terminology)
- [ ] Consistent heading levels
- [ ] Active voice preferred over passive
- [ ] Correct product names and branding

### Formatting
- [ ] Markdown renders correctly
- [ ] Code blocks have syntax highlighting
- [ ] Tables are properly formatted
- [ ] Images have alt text
- [ ] Internal links use relative paths

PR Template for Documentation

## Description
What does this documentation change cover?

## Related Issue
Fixes #123

## Type of Change
- [ ] New documentation page
- [ ] Update to existing page
- [ ] Fix typo or broken link
- [ ] Code example update

## Checklist
- [ ] I tested code examples
- [ ] I verified all links work
- [ ] I followed the style guide
- [ ] I added alt text to images
- [ ] I updated the navigation if needed

## Screenshots
(Add screenshots of rendered pages if applicable)

Managing Reviewer Workload

# .github/CODEOWNERS for docs
# Auto-assign reviewers based on file paths
/content/api/ @api-team-lead @tech-writer-lead
/content/guides/ @product-manager @tech-writer
/content/tutorials/ @developer-advocate

Handling Review Feedback

When a reviewer requests changes:

1. Read the feedback and understand the concern.
2. Make the requested changes.
3. Mark each conversation as resolved.
4. Request re-review.
5. Do not merge until all reviewers approve.

# After addressing feedback, re-request review
gh pr review --approve
# or request re-review from specific reviewer
gh pr review --request-reviews @reviewer

Common Mistakes

1. Reviewing Only the Diff, Not the Rendered Output

Raw Markdown diffs hide rendering issues. Use preview deployments or build locally to see how the page looks.

2. Assigning Too Many Reviewers

Three reviewers is the maximum for documentation. More than that creates coordination overhead and delays.

3. Reviewing for Style Before Content

Check technical accuracy first. Style and formatting are secondary and can be fixed in a follow-up.

4. Leaving Vague Feedback

"Fix this section" is not helpful. Explain what is wrong and suggest how to fix it.

5. Merging Without Approval

Documentation merged without review defeats the purpose of the PR process. Block merges until at least one reviewer approves.

Practice Questions

1. What is the purpose of a documentation review checklist?

It ensures reviewers check the same things every time, reducing the chance of missed errors.

2. Why should technical accuracy be checked before style?

Inaccurate documentation is worse than poorly styled documentation. Technical errors can cause reader confusion or production issues.

3. How do you handle conflicting feedback from two reviewers?

Discuss the conflict in the PR comments. The writer makes the final decision with the reviewers input.

4. What is the role of CODEOWNERS in documentation review?

CODEOWNERS automatically assigns reviewers based on which files are changed.

5. Challenge: Create a PR template for documentation changes and a review checklist with at least 10 items. Set up CODEOWNERS to auto-assign reviewers for different doc sections.

FAQ

Mini Project

Create a pull request template for documentation changes, a review checklist with 15 items organized by category, and a CODEOWNERS file that assigns reviewers based on doc sections. Test the workflow by opening a sample PR.

What's Next

With a review process established, learn about Branching Strategy for Docs to organize your documentation changes across different versions and features.