Technical accuracy review
What a document review looks like
One section of a technical accuracy review, checking a hardening guide's Content Security Policy advice for a self-hosted Node.js deployment. The verdict is "accurate but incomplete": the advice is sound in principle, and the project's own upstream history shows a fixed policy being shipped, breaking deployments, and being reverted. The excerpt under review is illustrative, but every claim about the project is checked against public upstream sources and cited.
Node.js · CSP · Security documentation
-
A verdict, then its boundary
Two words at the top, then exactly what was and was not checked: upstream issue and PR history, Helmet documentation, OWASP guidance — and not a running deployment. The reader knows what the verdict is worth before reading it.
-
Replacement wording, not an opinion
The correction is a paragraph the author can paste into their own guide, not a note saying the section needs work. Handing over the fix is the part that makes a review worth paying for.
-
Sources you can follow
Four citations under a page of argument: the two upstream issues that record the policy being shipped and reverted, the OWASP cheat sheet, and the Helmet documentation. A review of someone else's accuracy has to be checkable itself.
What a document review looks like
Fictional sample · 1 page