Tools of the Trade: Building a Docs-as-Code Stack That Works
You can’t adopt Docs-as-Code without tooling. But tooling can also kill your adoption if it’s too complex, too brittle, or too much of a jump from where your team is today.
You can’t adopt Docs-as-Code without tooling. But tooling can also kill your adoption if it’s too complex, too brittle, or too much of a jump from where your team is today.
Architectural decisions aren't just about picking the best-looking diagram. They're about trade-offs. Every technical choice — from a protocol to a cloud provider, from memory layout to messaging patterns — carries consequences.
In complex engineering environments, one of the hardest problems isn't building the right thing — it's agreeing what the "right thing" actually is.
Most of us have been burned by unstructured documentation.
Documentation isn't about templates, it's about intent.
The larger and more complex your systems, the more likely it is that your documentation is a mess.
One of the biggest documentation problems I’ve seen in engineering organisations — whether we’re talking about embedded firmware, cloud services, or head-end systems — is this. There’s a lack of clarity on who writes what, where it lives, and who owns it. We end up with duplicated interface specs, system diagrams out of sync with platform documentation, and project teams guessing what applies to them.
Documentation has long been the unloved sidekick of software engineering. Too often it’s either non-existent, buried in disconnected tools, or hopelessly out of date. And yet, in every retrospective, someone inevitably says, “We really need to improve our documentation.”