Back to portfolio
workflows/doc-audit
Workflow sample

Developer documentation audit sample

A representative audit showing how I identify documentation friction, developer onboarding gaps, and content quality risks.

  • Representative workflow sample
  • Documentation Audit
  • Developer Experience
  • Quality Assessment
01

Audit summary

Needs improvement

Onboarding clarity

Moderate risk

API example quality

Strong

Information architecture

Missing

Error handling guidance

Needs improvement

AI-readiness

02

Key findings

Finding 01high

Missing prerequisites

Problem

The quickstart assumes API keys, workspace setup, and permissions without explaining them.

Impact

Developers fail before making the first request.

Recommendation

Add a 'Before you begin' section with account, role, and environment requirements.

Finding 02high

Placeholder API examples

Problem

Examples use foo, bar, and test values.

Impact

Developers cannot map examples to real production workflows.

Recommendation

Replace placeholders with realistic tenant, workspace, event, and user metadata.

Finding 03critical

Weak error handling

Problem

The docs list status codes but do not explain recovery actions.

Impact

Developers know what failed but not what to do next.

Recommendation

Add error tables with causes and recommended actions.

Finding 04high

Unclear authentication model

Problem

The docs mention bearer tokens but do not explain token scope, rotation, or client-side restrictions.

Impact

Security-sensitive implementation details are easy to miss.

Recommendation

Add authentication guidance with warnings and examples.

Finding 05moderate

Poor AI retrieval structure

Problem

Long sections combine unrelated concepts.

Impact

Search and AI assistants may retrieve incomplete or ambiguous answers.

Recommendation

Split large sections into focused topics with descriptive headings.

03

Before / after example

// weak API exampleBefore
curl https://api.example.com/v1/events   -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"   -d '{
    "name": "foo",
    "type": "bar",
    "data": {
      "id": "test123",
      "value": 999
    }
  }'

Why it fails

  • • Placeholder values give no context
  • • No explanation of what "foo" or "bar" map to
  • • Missing required headers and idempotency
  • • No sense of what a real event looks like
// stronger API exampleAfter
curl https://api.atlasevents.dev/v1/events   -H "Authorization: Bearer atlas_live_sk_***"   -H "Idempotency-Key: 6f1a3b9c-0d29-4d6b-9c0e-1f4b7a2e88aa"   -H "Content-Type: application/json"   -d '{
    "stream": "orders-prod",
    "type": "order.fulfilled",
    "occurred_at": "2026-05-18T14:22:11Z",
    "data": {
      "order_id": "ord_8K2N1Q7",
      "total_cents": 4299
    }
  }'

Why it works

  • • Realistic stream name and event type
  • • Valid-looking IDs and timestamps
  • • Includes idempotency and auth headers
  • • Maps to a concrete business scenario
04

What this demonstrates

Documentation leadership judgment

Prioritizing the fixes that unblock the most developers, not the ones that are easiest to write.

Developer experience analysis

Evaluating docs from the reader's perspective — first request, first error, first success.

API docs quality standards

Knowing what separates a reference that developers trust from one they abandon.

AI-ready content thinking

Structuring information so search and assistants retrieve complete, accurate answers.

Practical remediation planning

Turning findings into actionable recommendations with clear scope and priority.

Systematic documentation evaluation

This sample demonstrates how I assess developer documentation quality, identify friction points, and produce prioritized, actionable remediation plans.