Feature documentation is judged by the boundaries. The happy path is straightforward and is usually already documented somewhere. What sends users to support is the limit nobody wrote down: the file size cap, the permission required, the interaction with a setting that is three menus away.
A good feature page describes boundaries and walkthroughs in equal measure, placing an emphasis on the boundaries first so that the reader doesn’t encounter them without instruction.
When you know how to use a feature, you know when to use it properly and when not to use it at all. A comprehensive description of a feature will explain both the context and the limitations. We describe the context of the feature first, followed by the limitations, followed by the procedure. It is a waste to guide a reader through ten steps only to inform them of the limitation at the end.
The following template will describe your feature without limits, as it has no limits to work from. A page outlining this idealized version will be created, and every discrepancy between this page and the software will be captured as a ticket with the prefix ‘the docs say’.
We take features to their breaking point. We try the large file that should exceed the size limit, the permission set to low that should fail, and the combination of the access controls your team is convinced no one will try. The results are the constraints section. It is really what your support team has been explaining manually to your customers for the last few months.
One feature page must comply with the UI, release notes, help-center articles, and sales materials. We draft against your current terminology bugs and inconsistencies and return a list of each page and location where wording differs in the hope that the inconsistency is resolved during the initial draft to avoid many rounds of reviews.
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 feature documentation | 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.
Yes and we mark what is provisional so that the page can be updated rather than rewritten later. Beta documentation should make it clear what is subject to change. Readers are forgiving of it and are not forgiving of finding out the change after developing upon it.
We send sample test data to confirm every figure mentioned in the specification to your engineers for verification prior to publishing. Quotas and defaults are the details most likely have changed since the specification was finalized, and are the details that the reader will rely on the most.
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