Writing Sample
Process / Implementation Guide

Implementation Guide

Docs-as-Code with MkDocs: A Practical Setup

This article shows a realistic docs-as-code approach: structure, local previews, quality gates, and CI publishing concepts. The goal is fast iteration with predictable quality.

What “docs-as-code” means in practice

Docs-as-code treats documentation like software: changes are versioned, reviewed, tested, and deployed. The advantage isn’t “writing in Markdown”—it’s enabling a repeatable pipeline:

  • Small, reviewable changes (diffs)
  • Automated checks (links, style, build)
  • Preview builds for reviewers
  • Reliable deployment and rollback

Recommended repository structure

docs/
 index.md
 getting-started/
 overview.md
 quickstart.md
 api/
 authentication.md
 endpoints.md
 operations/
 monitoring.md
 troubleshooting.md
mkdocs.yml

Structure around user intent (getting started → API → operations) rather than your org chart.

Local authoring workflow

  1. Write in small increments (one page or section per change).
  2. Preview locally before requesting review.
  3. Run quality checks (links, formatting) before publishing.

Local preview

Assuming Python is installed:

pip install mkdocs
mkdocs serve

Open http://127.0.0.1:8000 to preview changes.

Quality gates that prevent “docs debt”

Most doc problems aren’t “bad writing.” They’re broken links, inconsistent terminology, and outdated steps. Add automated checks early:

1) Link checking

Broken links destroy trust. Add an automated link checker in your pipeline (or run it locally). Aim for:

  • Fail builds on broken internal links
  • Warn (not fail) on flaky external links

2) Style and consistency checks

Use a linter to enforce consistency for:

  • Terminology (“sign in” vs “log in”)
  • Capitalization of product names
  • Voice and tone rules (as warnings)

3) Build verification

Always build the docs in CI. If the site doesn’t build, nothing should merge. This prevents “works on my machine” documentation.

Review workflow that works with engineers

Engineers dislike vague review requests. Make reviews specific and testable:

  • What changed: 2–3 bullets
  • What to verify: “Run these commands and confirm output matches.”
  • Known gaps: “Waiting on error codes from service team.”

CI/CD publishing concepts (platform-agnostic)

Whether you use GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, or Jenkins, the pattern is the same:

  1. Build on every change.
  2. Create a preview site for reviewers.
  3. Publish to production on merge to the main branch.

Release-aligned documentation

For products that ship versions, keep documentation aligned:

  • Tag doc builds by release (v1.2, v1.3)
  • Maintain a “latest” view for new users
  • Document breaking changes prominently

Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

  • Pitfall: One giant “docs” folder with no owner.
    Fix: Assign section ownership and set review expectations.
  • Pitfall: Shipping docs only at the end.
    Fix: Draft early; mark incomplete sections clearly.
  • Pitfall: Too many rules too soon.
    Fix: Start with link checks + build checks; add style rules gradually.

Outcome you should aim for

A good docs-as-code system makes documentation a predictable part of shipping software: fast to update, easy to review, and hard to break.

This is a sample article to demonstrate how I write.