60. Sustainable technical documentation (pocket version)

TL;DR (5 lines)

Delivery is proof preservation.
Each gate should protect a named claim.
Local, CI, and review evidence are not interchangeable.
The chapter should connect process to code.
Good delivery docs reduce ambiguity about readiness.

Concrete Problem

Delivery chapters often list CI or review steps without connecting them to the evidence they are supposed to protect.

Coherent example

space demo/delivery

proc validate_release(name: string) -> int {
  if name == "" { give 11 }
  give 0
}

export *

Complete examples

Each block below is a complete reading unit with its own boundary, data shape, and observable result.

Primary coherent example

This is the compact chapter anchor used by the surrounding explanation.

space demo/delivery

proc validate_release(name: string) -> int {
  if name == "" { give 11 }
  give 0
}

export *

Local release evidence

This program exposes a release contract that local checks can cover.

space examples/delivery/local

proc validate_release(name: string, version: int) -> int {
  if name == "" { give 11 }
  if version <= 0 { give 12 }
  give 0
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give validate_release("demo", 1)
}

export *

CI-facing status

This variant keeps the result code stable for automation.

space examples/delivery/ci

proc check_artifact(size: int) -> int {
  if size <= 0 { give 21 }
  give 0
}

proc release(size: int) -> int {
  let status: int = check_artifact(size)
  if status != 0 { give status }
  give 0
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give release(42)
}

export *

Immediate work for this chapter

Connect local checks, CI checks, and review gates to named evidence.
Keep release status codes stable for automation.
Show which contract each delivery gate protects.
Keep the first code block complete and aligned with current Vitte docs syntax.
Keep the invalid block focused on one broken contract only.
Replace generic prose with one concrete rule visible in the code.
Keep every example small enough to review from top to bottom.

Chapter override: 60-sustainable-technical-documentation.html

Dedicated problem

60. Sustainable technical documentation needs a concrete production-grade anchor around local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence. The page should keep the examples, diagnostics, and review rules tied to that exact boundary instead of drifting back to generic tutorial prose.

Specific complete examples

60. Sustainable technical documentation chapter anchor

The primary example is promoted here as the first chapter-specific production reading unit.

space demo/delivery

proc validate_release(name: string) -> int {
  if name == "" { give 11 }
  give 0
}

export *

Local release evidence

This program exposes a release contract that local checks can cover.

space examples/delivery/local

proc validate_release(name: string, version: int) -> int {
  if name == "" { give 11 }
  if version <= 0 { give 12 }
  give 0
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give validate_release("demo", 1)
}

export *

CI-facing status

This variant keeps the result code stable for automation.

space examples/delivery/ci

proc check_artifact(size: int) -> int {
  if size <= 0 { give 21 }
  give 0
}

proc release(size: int) -> int {
  let status: int = check_artifact(size)
  if status != 0 { give status }
  give 0
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give release(42)
}

export *

Risks and diagnostics

Risk	Diagnostic signal	Action
Boundary drift	The chapter loses sight of local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence.	Restate the boundary beside the first code block and every invalid case.
Generic prose	A paragraph would still be true in another chapter.	Replace it with a code-specific rule from this page.
Weak diagnostic	The failure does not point back to the chapter contract.	Reduce the invalid case until one failure explains the rule.

Review checklist

The first example is complete and aligned with Vitte docs syntax.
The production section names where this construct belongs in real code.
The risk table connects each failure to a diagnostic or review action.
The avoid list rejects broad misuse without adding quiz-like prompts.

Production use

Use this chapter when a code review needs to preserve local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence.
Keep examples small enough to copy into fixtures or docs smoke tests.
Treat the invalid case as regression material for future docs checks.

What to avoid

Do not add a second topic that hides the chapter's main contract.
Do not expand examples by adding unrelated subsystems.
Do not rely on prose when a small Vitte block can show the rule.

Global explanation

Delivery pages should explain evidence flow. Local checks, CI pipelines, and review rules are useful only when the reader knows what claim each one is guarding and what kind of regression it can still miss.

Invalid case

proc broken_release(name: string) -> int {
  if name { give 0 }
  give 11
}

This invalid case stays small so the broken contract remains visible.

Common pitfalls

Turning CI pages into command inventories only.
Assuming automated checks remove the need for architectural review.
Treating documentation and code evidence as separate concerns.

Short exercise

Take the example and write one local check, one CI check, and one review criterion that would protect it.

Summary in 5 points

Delivery is proof preservation.
Each gate should protect a named claim.
Local, CI, and review evidence are not interchangeable.
The chapter should connect process to code.
Good delivery docs reduce ambiguity about readiness.

Next best action

Keep the example small, reproduce it locally, then continue to the full chapter if you need the broader context.

Chapter deep dive

60. Sustainable technical documentation connects local checks to release confidence. The chapter is written for a reader deciding whether a change is ready to ship.

The practical boundary is: local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence. Keep that boundary in view while reading the example, the invalid case, and the exercise.

Role in the learning path

Delivery chapters often list CI or review steps without connecting them to the evidence they are supposed to protect.

One feature moves through local validation, CI checks, and review expectations with one visible contract.

This chapter helps the reader understand delivery as proof preservation.

Profile-specific deep dive

Evidence flow

Local checks prove fast invariants.
CI checks prove repeatability on clean infrastructure.
Review checks preserve architecture and intent.

Release contract

Automation needs stable status codes and predictable output.
Docs and tests should protect the same readiness claim.
A release gate should say which regression it prevents.

Reading the valid example

space demo/delivery: names the ownership boundary before any behavior appears.
proc validate_release(name: string) -> int {: states the callable contract: inputs first, result shape last.
if name == "" { give 11 }: guards a failure or edge case before the nominal result.
give 0: ends the local path with an explicit result.
}: supports the chapter contract without adding hidden behavior.
export *: supports the chapter contract without adding hidden behavior.

Lesson from the invalid example

proc broken_release(name: string) -> int {: this line helps isolate the failure because it states the callable contract: inputs first, result shape last.
if name { give 0 }: this line helps isolate the failure because it guards a failure or edge case before the nominal result.
give 11: this line helps isolate the failure because it ends the local path with an explicit result.
}: this line helps isolate the failure because it supports the chapter contract without adding hidden behavior.

Engineering decisions to preserve

Name the boundary before changing code: Delivery is proof preservation.
Keep the smallest example executable: Each gate should protect a named claim.
Make the invalid path explain one failure only: Local, CI, and review evidence are not interchangeable.
Prefer a visible contract over an implied convention: The chapter should connect process to code.
Leave a review anchor that another maintainer can verify: Good delivery docs reduce ambiguity about readiness.

Context-specific review criteria

The page makes the local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence boundary visible before the first code block.
The intended reader, a reader deciding whether a change is ready to ship, can follow the valid example through named contracts instead of memorized tokens.
The invalid example fails for the same reason the prose discusses.
The exercise extends the same contract instead of introducing an unrelated concept.
The next chapter can reuse the vocabulary introduced here without redefining it.
The chapter stays specific enough that its title materially changes the meaning of the page.
Every warning connects to a concrete code shape.
The summary leaves one durable engineering rule behind.

Contract matrix

Concern	Chapter rule	Evidence to keep
Ownership	Code belongs behind the boundary named by the chapter.	The chapter keeps ownership visible through local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence.
Input contract	The procedure receives a shape that is named before branching.	The valid example names the accepted shape before branching.
Nominal path	The clean path remains readable without hidden state.	The successful result can be found without reading hidden state.
Failure path	The invalid case isolates one failure reason.	The broken example has one main reason to fail.
Naming	Names explain the domain rather than only the mechanism.	Names remain tied to the chapter goal.
Types	Types remove ambiguity from values and results.	Fields and return values carry domain meaning.
Control flow	Branches stay traceable from guard to result.	Guards appear before the result they protect.
Module boundary	The public surface stays smaller than implementation detail.	The public surface remains smaller than the implementation detail.
Diagnostic value	The failure path points back to the exact contract.	The invalid example points back to the exact contract.
Test value	Regression evidence covers one passing path and one failing path.	One passing case and one failing case cover the lesson.
Refactor value	Implementation cleanup preserves the result shape.	The result shape stays stable during local cleanup.
Publication value	The chapter leaves one concrete engineering rule.	The chapter leaves one concrete engineering rule.

Rewrite path for this chapter

Rewrite the opening paragraph so it names local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence before naming syntax.
Keep the valid example small enough that the full contract fits on screen.
Move any broad claim back to a specific line in the example.
Preserve one invalid case that fails for the chapter's main reason.
Add one sentence explaining why the invalid case is not a random error.
Make every pitfall actionable by naming the code shape it damages.
Keep the exercise inside the same domain as the example.
Avoid introducing a second unrelated project just to show variety.
Use the summary to restate the chapter rule, not the table of contents.
Check that the next chapter can build on this vocabulary.
Remove any sentence that would still be true in every other chapter.
Keep the last action small, local, and testable.

Diagnostic anchors

The first inspected line is the one that declares the chapter's main contract.
The central type, field, procedure, or branch carries the chapter's main idea.
The invalid example includes a sentence-level explanation of its failure.
Refactors preserve the detail that would otherwise mislead a future reader.
The behavior that must stay stable is named before implementation changes begin.
Vague names are replaced before they become review friction.
Regression coverage protects the chapter's main contract.
Implementation details stay out of public API unless the chapter explicitly teaches that surface.
Beginner-facing diagnostics point to the contract, not to a random syntax detail.
The next chapter can assume one clearly named concept from this page.

When extending this chapter

Extend toward a reader deciding whether a change is ready to ship, not toward a broader catalog of features.
Add a second example only if it sharpens the same contract.
Prefer a small variant over a new subsystem.
Keep prose close to code; every abstract claim should point to a visible shape.
Do not hide a new concept in the exercise.
If a paragraph explains policy, add the concrete code boundary it protects.
If a paragraph explains syntax, add the semantic reason the syntax matters.
If a paragraph explains architecture, identify the owner of each boundary.
If a paragraph explains failure, keep the failing line close to the explanation.
Stop expanding when the chapter has one complete, testable lesson.

Failure modes to avoid

Turning CI pages into command inventories only.
Assuming automated checks remove the need for architectural review.
Treating documentation and code evidence as separate concerns.

Practice scenario

Start from the coherent example in 60. Sustainable technical documentation. Change one identifier, one guard, and one returned value. After each change, write down whether the public contract is still the same contract or a new one.

If the contract changed, update the type or result shape first. If only the implementation changed, keep the external name stable and add one regression note explaining what should not change again.

Before moving on

You can state the chapter role: connects local checks to release confidence.
You can point to the main boundary: local evidence, CI evidence, and review evidence.
You can connect the invalid case to the problem statement: Delivery chapters often list CI or review steps without connecting them to the evidence they are supposed to protect.
You can perform the exercise: Take the example and write one local check, one CI check, and one review criterion that would protect it.