Red Hat Technical Writing Style Guide

(stylepedia.net)

263 points jumpocelot | 1 comments | 10 Jul 25 15:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.365s | source

Show context

david422 ◴[10 Jul 25 18:07 UTC] No.44523818[source]▶

This seems like one of the perfect use cases for AI. Have the AI ingest the style guide, and then comment on your written work to point out where your work does not adhere to the style guide.

replies(6): >>44523919 #>>44523975 #>>44524050 #>>44524434 #>>44525933 #>>44534467 #

ndespres ◴[10 Jul 25 18:22 UTC] No.44523975[source]▶

>>44523818 #

There’s so much value in consistent, expertly-written technical documentation that outsourcing it to the hallucination machine is a pointless exercise in aggravation. I do not wish to read machine-mangled slop. I want an expert to write expertly.

replies(2): >>44523998 #>>44525138 #

1. smarx007 ◴[10 Jul 25 20:24 UTC] No.44525138[source]▶

>>44523975 #

I am afraid the choice in many OSS projects is not slop vs expert-written content but LLM-assisted content or nothing.

I recently produced a bunch of migration guides for our project by pointing Claude 4 Sonnet at my poorly structured Obsidian notes (some more than 5 years old), a few commits where I migrated the reference implementation, and a reasonably well-maintained yet not immediately actionable CHANGELOG. I think the result is far from top-notch but, at the same time, it is way better IMO than nothing (nothing being the only viable alternative given my priorities): https://oslc.github.io/developing-oslc-applications/eclipse_...

↑