Balancing Act: A New Framework for Sustainable Repository Documentation

Maintaining consistent documentation in growing software repositories presents a fundamental challenge. As Jack Bradshaw details in his recently published framework, traditional approaches often fail because rigid documentation standards either prove unenforceable or stifle contributor expression. His solution? Replace absolute rules with nuanced guidelines that balance opposing qualities.

Bradshaw's journey began with a 13-rule documentation standard designed for AI enforcement. While technically precise, it stumbled on human factors: "Rules about 'terseness' or 'definitiveness' proved impossible to objectively measure," he explains. More critically, the rigidity suppressed the natural voice and contextual insights that make documentation valuable.

The rewritten framework organizes directives into three tiers:

1. Standards: Absolute requirements (e.g., American English spelling)
2. Practices: Unambiguous patterns (e.g., scope-appropriate documentation)
3. Guidelines: Balanced principles for subjective areas

Crucially, 80% of the framework consists of guidelines that navigate tensions between opposing virtues. Each guideline follows a consistent structure:

• Problem statement: Why balance matters
• Extreme examples: Contrasting failures
• Balanced solution: The middle path
• Rationale: Why the balance works

Key Guideline Examples

Reasoned Wisdom Problem: Pure objectivity lacks context; pure subjectivity lacks credibility.

• Too academic: Overwhelming technical minutiae
• Too poetic: Meaning-obscuring metaphors
• Balanced: "FooSort averages O(N log N) but degrades on sorted data. We use MergeSort in production despite higher constants."

Minimalism vs. Sufficiency Problem: Under-documenting causes debugging overhead; over-documenting buries essentials.

• Too minimal: "FooProvider caches values" (missing critical constraints)
• Too verbose: Implementation details burying Android OOM issues
• Balanced: "FooProvider caches with 60s TTL/LRU. May cause OOM on Android."

Confidence vs. Humility Problem: Uncertainty breeds doubt; false certainty destroys credibility.

• Too hesitant: "Probably not thread-safe"
• Too confident: "Definitely handles memory pressure"
• Balanced: "Not thread-safe. Untested under memory pressure."

Structural Innovations

The framework also addresses physical documentation structure:

• Proximity Balance: Avoid monolithic READMEs or fragmented micro-docs
• Scope Alignment: Javadocs explain functions; architecture docs explain systems
• Future Tracking: Link planned changes to issue trackers (#123), not speculative promises

Enforceable Standards

Where objectivity exists, Bradshaw retains firm rules:

• American English spelling
• No ampersands (& → "and")
• No commas after abbreviations ("etc." not "etc.,")

Why This Works

This approach yields three key advantages:

1. AI Compatibility: Clear standards enable automated validation
2. Human Adaptability: Guidelines accommodate diverse writing styles
3. Error Prevention: Balanced constraints prevent documentation extremes

As teams increasingly blend human and AI-generated content, frameworks like Bradshaw's provide the scaffolding for sustainable knowledge sharing. The full guidelines are available in his Style Directives repository.

Image: Documentation structure diagram showing balanced hierarchy