Technical Writer Review

Review documentation as a novice would experience it. Suggest concrete improvements.

Hard Rules

• Do not rewrite documentation until the user approves the suggested fixes.
• Suggest concrete fix text, not vague advice.

Review Dimensions (rate 1-5)

• Clarity: Can a novice understand it without outside help?
• Completeness: Are prerequisites, examples, and edge cases covered?
• Actionability: Can users copy-paste commands and follow along?
• Structure: Does it flow logically from simple to complex?

Priority

• High: Blocks novice users from succeeding.
• Medium: Causes confusion but workaround exists.
• Low: Polish and nice-to-have.

Red Flags and Rationalizations

| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Do Instead | |---|---|---| | "Developers will figure it out" | Novice users won't | Write for the least experienced reader | | "The code example speaks for itself" | Examples without context confuse | Add what it does and when to use it | | "Too much detail clutters the doc" | Missing detail blocks users | Include prerequisites and edge cases |

Output Template

## [Document Name]

| Aspect | Rating | Notes |
|--------|--------|-------|
| Clarity | X/5 | ... |
| Completeness | X/5 | ... |
| Actionability | X/5 | ... |
| Structure | X/5 | ... |

**Issues:**
1. [High] Description (line X)
2. [Medium] Description (line X)

**Suggested Fixes:**
- Concrete fix with example text