Master this essential documentation concept
A formal request to review and merge changes to documentation or code; allows team members to review modifications before they are published.
A Pull Request (PR) or Change Request (CR) is a structured workflow process that allows documentation professionals to propose edits, additions, or deletions to content and submit them for peer review before publishing. Originally a software development concept, PRs have become essential tools for documentation teams managing content in version-controlled environments like Git-based platforms.
A development team releases a new API version with breaking changes, and the documentation must be updated simultaneously with the release. Publishing incorrect or premature documentation could mislead developers integrating with the API.
Use a Pull Request workflow to coordinate documentation changes with the engineering release cycle, ensuring technical accuracy is validated before the docs go live alongside the product update.
["Create a new documentation branch named after the API version (e.g., 'api-v3-docs')", 'Technical writer drafts updated endpoint descriptions, parameter tables, and code examples', 'Submit PR and assign the lead developer and a senior technical writer as required reviewers', 'Developer reviews for technical accuracy; writer reviews for clarity and style consistency', 'Link the documentation PR to the corresponding engineering PR for synchronized merging', 'Set the PR to merge only after both the code and documentation reviews are approved', 'Use the PR description to document what changed, why, and which user segments are affected']
API documentation goes live simultaneously with the product release, contains zero technical inaccuracies, and developers can immediately reference correct integration instructions without confusion.
A healthcare or financial services company must update their compliance documentation to reflect new regulatory requirements. These changes require a documented approval chain from legal, compliance officers, and technical staff before publication.
Implement a mandatory multi-stage PR workflow that enforces sequential approvals from all required stakeholders, creating an auditable record that satisfies regulatory review requirements.
["Create a dedicated branch for the compliance update with a clear naming convention (e.g., 'compliance-HIPAA-2024-update')", 'Technical writer drafts changes based on the new regulatory guidelines', 'Configure PR to require approvals from: Legal team, Compliance Officer, and Documentation Lead', 'Add a PR template that includes checkboxes for regulatory reference numbers and change justifications', 'Reviewers leave inline comments with specific legal citations where changes are required', 'Export the completed PR review thread as a PDF for compliance records before merging', 'Tag the merged commit with a version number and effective date for future auditing']
All compliance documentation changes have a fully documented, timestamped approval trail that satisfies regulatory audit requirements, and the team can demonstrate exactly who approved what and when.
An open-source project wants to accept documentation improvements from external contributors but needs a way to review community submissions for accuracy, tone consistency, and adherence to style guidelines before they appear in official docs.
Use a public PR workflow that allows external contributors to submit documentation improvements while maintaining quality gates through a structured review process managed by the core documentation team.
['Create a CONTRIBUTING.md file that explains the PR submission process and documentation standards', 'Set up PR templates with required fields: description of change, reason for change, and affected user personas', 'Configure automated checks to run spell checking and style guide linting on every submitted PR', 'Assign documentation team members as codeowners so they are automatically requested as reviewers', "Use PR labels to categorize contributions: 'bug fix', 'new content', 'improvement', 'needs SME review'", 'Provide feedback within 5 business days and guide contributors through any required revisions', 'Recognize merged contributors in release notes to encourage ongoing community participation']
Community contributions improve documentation coverage and accuracy while the review process ensures all published content meets quality standards, creating a scalable content improvement pipeline.
A global software company maintains documentation in eight languages. When source English content changes, translated versions must be updated, reviewed by native speakers, and published without breaking the existing localized content.
Create language-specific PR workflows that trigger automatically when source documentation changes, routing translated content to appropriate native-speaking reviewers before updating the localized documentation sites.
['When the English source PR is merged, automatically create linked translation PRs for each target language', 'Assign native-speaking technical reviewers or localization partners as required approvers for each language PR', 'Include the original English PR link in each translation PR for context and reference', 'Use a translation memory tool that pre-populates unchanged segments, reducing reviewer workload', 'Reviewers check for linguistic accuracy, cultural appropriateness, and technical terminology consistency', 'Block publication of translated content until the source language PR is fully merged and approved', 'Track translation PR completion rates to identify language coverage gaps and resource needs']
All language versions stay synchronized with source content updates, native speakers validate cultural and linguistic accuracy, and global users receive consistent, high-quality documentation in their preferred language.
A well-written PR description dramatically reduces review time and prevents miscommunication. Reviewers need context to evaluate whether changes are appropriate, accurate, and complete without having to track down the author for clarification.
Large PRs with hundreds of changes are difficult to review thoroughly, leading to superficial approvals that miss errors. Smaller, focused PRs are reviewed faster, generate more useful feedback, and are easier to roll back if problems arise.
Without defined standards, reviewers focus on different aspects and provide inconsistent feedback. A standardized PR checklist ensures every review covers the same quality dimensions and sets clear expectations for both authors and reviewers.
PRs that sit unreviewed create bottlenecks, frustrate contributors, and delay important documentation updates. Establishing clear SLAs for review response times keeps the workflow moving and respects contributors' time.
Manual review is valuable for judgment-based quality assessment, but automating routine checks frees reviewers to focus on content quality rather than mechanical issues. Automated checks catch common errors consistently and immediately, before human reviewers even look at the PR.
Join thousands of teams creating outstanding documentation
Book a Demo