docs: clarify technical writing guidance#25603
Merged
Merged
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for docsdocker ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
docker-agent
left a comment
docker-agent
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assessment: 🟢 APPROVE
The new guidance sections are well-written and self-consistent. The additions cover:
- Explain technical behavior: Leads with observable outcomes, separates guarantees from variable behavior, and gives readers a clear action — all correctly demonstrated with before/after examples.
- Scope preservation extension: The added caveat about proportional caveats is concise and fits the existing section's character.
- Clear subjects and modifiers: Renames "Dangling modifiers" to a more descriptive heading and adds actor-naming guidance with a concrete example.
- Conciseness extension: The qualifier guidance is accurate and uses a well-chosen example (read-only mount vs. writable Git clone).
- Checklist updates: Both the voice checklist and common mistakes entries correctly reflect the new guidance.
No style guide violations, markdown issues, AI-isms, scope inflation, or content accuracy problems were found in the changed lines.
dvdksn
force-pushed
the
codex/style-technical-behavior
branch
from
July 20, 2026 11:56
e0948f6 to
f6137fe
Compare
docker-agent
left a comment
docker-agent
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assessment: 🟡 NEEDS ATTENTION
Technical explanations can be accurate while leaving readers to reconstruct outcomes or act on open-ended caveats. Document outcome-first prose, product boundaries, actionable variability, precise actors, meaningful qualifiers, and proportional caveats.
dvdksn
force-pushed
the
codex/style-technical-behavior
branch
from
July 20, 2026 11:59
f6137fe to
bb68010
Compare
aevesdocker
approved these changes
Jul 20, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Add guidance for leading technical explanations with observable outcomes, separating product guarantees from tool-dependent behavior, and giving readers a clear action when behavior varies. Extend the existing rules for precise subjects, meaningful qualifiers, and proportional caveats.
Generated by Codex