Developer guides must let users go from starting to something that works. Anything that obstructs this flow should be in the references. The most common failure of a guide is trying to be both a developer guide and a reference, and thus finishing neither.
We match the brief to a writer who has used the relevant tools. They summarize what the guide presumes to be known, what it purposely omits, and the approximate time it will take to give readers the ability to decide if it’s worth investing an hour.
Guides break at the boundary of what they ‘assume’. A reader not using CLI or whose credentials have a different scope, reaches a wall at step two with no way of knowing whether the mistake was theirs or the guide. Care must be taken in selecting self-explanatory starting state names because it is more valuable than any amount of polished explanation.
A model is only as good as its data. In the case of IT documentation, models often contain happy paths with very little space for how things break. Documentation tools lack an easy way to show how users access different permissions, and so the guide fails precisely when users need it most. The setup for the required credentials may get one sentence, and the half your users run into a permission error will likely get none.
The author describes each step of the construction process, noting down all the steps that required a guess. They use these guesses as their foundation. Often, internal materials provide a lot of information on interfaces, but are lacking for describing the actual order of the steps. In that case, we do the entire process and check our construction against the designer in order to see if our construction method is correct.
Accuracy review here is behavioral. An external reviewer goes through the draft line by line and notes every instance where they get a different result, down to differences in a console message that no longer pertains. Those differences along with notes are then sent to the writer prior to delivery, and the outstanding items are documented in the handover.
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 developer guide | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short guide | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard guide | 2,500 | $250 | $2.50 | $252.50 |
| Comprehensive guide | 5,000 | $500 | $5 | $505 |
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.
What the piece is for, who reads it, roughly how long it should be, and anything it must include or avoid. Links to your existing material help. If you are unsure, send what you have and the writer will come back with questions.
Up to 3 days. The writer has to read around the subject before writing it, so we quote honestly rather than promising an hour. If your deadline is tighter, say so in the brief and we will tell you before you pay whether we can meet it.
The writer builds enough of one to write the guide honestly, and you get that code with the delivery. It is written for clarity rather than production use, and the guide says so, because sample code has a habit of ending up in real systems.
This is where most of our writing comes into play. There is a lot of care that goes into pinning versions on both sides and clearly communicating which errors originate from which systems because it is certainly possible for someone to blame the wrong system and take a lot of time from everyone by doing so (they could spend an entire afternoon).
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.
I dropped all nine samples in a fresh workspace, and they all compiled. Two included comments that pointed out a gotcha with our SDK that isn’t documented, so I added those comments to the documentation.
Dull and exact manuals for machinery can be considered good manuals, and this one is. The writer didn’t try to make the lockout procedure engaging. The writer also asked for photographs of the actual panel rather than working from our CAD labels, which caught a mismatch in two switch names.
For six releases, our change log buried a breaking change in the release note, behind six other features. The writer has chosen to put breaking changes at the top of the release not with features. That makes obvious sense. It should have been done long ago. And we’re down to the last one!
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