There are multiple ways to communicate with end users of products you build. A changelog is different from an announcement in that it is a record. It’s accumulative and useful to someone who encounters a problem in March so they can look back to November. Because of that, a consistent format is important, more so than individual entries.
So the common failure is not bad writing. It is drift. Three authors, three ways of marking a breaking change, and the file stops being searchable in the one way that mattered.
A well-structured changelog tells users whether a change was an addition, deletion, modification, removal, restoration, etc. without users needing to submit a support ticket. Changelog entries must be consistent in the level of detail in order for users to be able to easily identify changes. Categories such as added, changed, deprecated, removed, fixed, etc. are dull, and a reader can detect changes that affect the application in just a few seconds by categorizing changelog entries over an eighteen month period.
Entries in the generated changelog are worded carefully. The model can’t verify what shipped, so it is forced to say things like ‘various exports module improvements’ after the export module ever so slightly broke everyone’s import scripts when a single CSV column was renamed. A changelog is supposed to record such information.
The author starts by fixing the format. He places categories, date style, version style, and the qualification of what deserves an entry. Drafts are written according to the spec. When we backfill history, we use the merge log you provided and mark any entries that could not be verified, as opposed to putting a date that appears to be correct.
We send pull requests instead of worded documents because engineers can only review things technically accurate, and nobody opens worded documents. That’s why each entry in our pull requests includes the source reference; to allow for a yes or no check review as opposed to a verbal review.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical changelog | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short | 500 | $50 | $0.50 | $50.50 |
| Standard | 1,000 | $100 | $1 | $101 |
| In-depth | 2,000 | $200 | $2 | $202 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Ask on the contact page and a person will answer, usually the same working day. For a live order, reply to your confirmation email and it reaches whoever is handling it.
Ask on the contact page and a person will answer, usually the same working day. For a live order, reply to your confirmation email and it reaches whoever is handling it.
Release notes communicate the highlights of an update to users. You can read more about each change via the changelog. (We can write changelogs if you want.) When an update is released, both notes mention the same change(s) but in different ways. One contains enough detail to explain the release notes. One is written for people looking to figure out a problem that happens months later. If you request both, then we’ll write both.
We can provide Markdown formatted in your preferred style. Most teams typically add the Markdown to the pull request. Working in the repository is possible, but that would be an access conversation rather than a standard part of the order.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Ordering is clearly very good, and the screenshots are clearly explained. The guide assumes the customer has admin access, which a good number of them do not. We wrote a pre-req box ourselves in ten minutes. Everything else was complete.
Mostly excellent. Your improvements to the auth section are better than what our engineers wrote. Your pagination endpoints, however, were explained in the spec according to how they behave rather than how they are, which required two revisions. Our spec is incorrect in that area as well.
They requested access to our staging endpoint with read access and used it too. The auth section of your docs shows us the 409 error we return for duplicate idempotency keys. That error is not documented anywhere in our old docs. Contract documentation has never come back and educated me about my API before.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees