Docs as Code: Benefits, Challenges, and Best Practices

A developer ships a new feature, but the documentation still shows the previous behavior. When the documentation is updated later, reviewers have to work through a separate process to compare the changes, determine whether the documentation still matches the product, and fix issues such as broken links or invalid formatting.

In this article, you'll look at how Docs as Code helps teams keep documentation connected to development, review changes more effectively, and fix documentation issues before they are published.

What Is Docs as Code

Docs as Code is a process to manage documentation using the same development practices used to manage code. Instead of treating documentation as a separate publishing task, teams manage it through version control, reviews, automated checks, and development workflows.

The approach connects documentation changes to the work happening in the product. A documentation update can be tracked, reviewed through a pull request, and merged before it is published. Code and documentation can live in the same repository or in separate repositories. What matters is that the documentation changes are visible and reviewable.

A typical Docs-as-Code workflow uses Git for version control, Markdown or another plain-text format for writing, pull requests for review, and automated checks for issues such as broken links or build failures. A publishing pipeline can then build and deploy the documentation after the changes are approved.

Docs as Code is a workflow, not a specific tool or repository structure. You don't need to use a particular documentation platform, keep code and documentation in the same repository, or keep every documentation change in the same pull request. The important part is using development practices that make documentation easier to change, review, and maintain.

Why Use Docs as Code

Docs as Code helps teams keep documentation closer to product changes. Documentation is part of the product experience, so keeping it aligned with product changes matters. When documentation follows the development workflow, teams can track and review documentation changes alongside the work that changes the product. This reduces the gap between what the product does and what the documentation describes.

It also makes documentation changes easier to review. With version control and pull requests, reviewers can see exactly what changed, comment on specific updates, and approve the documentation before it is merged. They don't have to compare separate document versions or review changes through a separate publishing workflow.

Automated checks can catch mechanical problems before documentation is published. Teams can check for broken links, invalid Markdown, build failures, and similar issues as part of the review process. These checks don't replace human review, but they can catch problems that are easy to miss manually.

Docs as Code also gives developers and writers a shared workflow for contributing to documentation. Developers can propose changes when they find an issue, while writers can review the content for clarity and consistency. This makes documentation easier to maintain as the product changes.

How the Workflow Works

A Docs-as-Code workflow follows a cycle: update the documentation, track the change, review it, run checks, and publish it. The exact tools can vary, but the workflow usually looks like this:

1. Write or update the documentation: Update the documentation when a product behavior, API, configuration, or feature changes.

2. Commit the changes to version control: Store the documentation in Git so the team can see what changed and recover earlier versions when needed.

3. Open a pull request: Use the pull request to show the changes and give developers, writers, and other reviewers a place to comment on them.

4. Run automated checks: Use GitHub Actions to check for problems such as broken links, invalid Markdown, or documentation build failures before merging the change.

5. Review and merge the change: Reviewers verify that the documentation matches the product and follows the team's documentation standards.

6. Build and publish the documentation: After the change is merged, the documentation pipeline can build and publish the updated content.

The workflow can be easier to understand when you follow one documentation change from start to finish:

Open larger view

For example, a writer can create a branch for a documentation update, edit the content, and open a pull request. Reviewers can then check the changes while automated validation looks for mechanical problems. Once the change is approved and merged, the documentation pipeline can build and deploy the updated content.

The code and documentation don't have to live in the same repository or change in the same pull request. What matters is that documentation follows a workflow where changes are tracked, reviewed, validated, and published instead of being maintained through an isolated process.

What Tools Support the Workflow?

Docs as Code doesn't depend on a specific tools. Teams combine different tools to write, manage, review, validate, and publish documentation.

1. Version control: Git tracks documentation changes and keeps a history of previous versions. Teams can use Git with platforms such as GitHub or GitLab to collaborate on those changes.
2. Authoring formats: Markdown, AsciiDoc, and reStructuredText. Teams store documentation as plain-text files that can be managed in version control. Tools such as Docusaurus and MkDocs can use these files to build documentation sites.
3. Review tools: GitHub Pull Requests and GitLab Merge Requests. Reviewers see documentation diffs, leave comments, and approve changes before they are merged.
4. CI/CD: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI/CD, and Jenkins can run documentation checks, build the site, and publish changes after they pass the required checks.
5. Documentation platforms: Tools such as Docusaurus, MkDocs, Hugo, GitHub Pages, and Read the Docs can handle different parts of building and delivering documentation.

The exact tools vary by team. Docs as Code is defined by the workflow, not by a particular Git provider, documentation generator, or publishing platform.

Challenges of Docs as Code

Docs as Code can make documentation easier to track and review, but the workflow also introduces its own challenges. Teams need to consider who will contribute, how changes will be reviewed, and how much tooling they can maintain.

1. Git and Markdown have a learning curve: Contributors who are used to visual editors may need to learn Git, Markdown, pull requests, and other development practices before they can contribute comfortably.

2. Nontechnical contributors may face friction: A workflow built around branches, commits, and pull requests can make documentation harder to update for subject matter experts who don't regularly use development tools. Teams may need simpler contribution paths or support for these contributors.

3. Documentation can still drift from the product: Version control makes documentation changes traceable, but it doesn't guarantee that the content stays accurate. Documentation can still become outdated when product changes don't include the corresponding documentation work.

4. Merge conflicts and review bottlenecks can slow changes: Documentation changes can conflict when multiple contributors edit the same files. Reviews can also become a bottleneck when every change requires approval from a small group of reviewers.

5. Existing documentation can be difficult to migrate: Moving documentation from a CMS, wiki, or another publishing system into a Docs-as-Code workflow can require converting content, restructuring files, preserving links, and adapting existing publishing processes.

6. The toolchain adds maintenance work: A Docs-as-Code setup can involve version control, authoring formats, documentation generators, CI checks, hosting, and deployment pipelines. Each part needs to be configured and maintained as the documentation system evolves.

These challenges don't mean Docs as Code won't work. They show why the workflow needs to match the team's contributors, documentation needs, and ability to maintain the supporting tools.

Choosing a Docs-as-Code Approach

Docs as Code doesn't need to look the same for every team. The right approach depends on who contributes to the documentation, how much engineering support is available, and how much control the team needs over reviews and publishing.

The goal is not to adopt the most technical workflow possible. Choose an approach that gives contributors enough control to maintain accurate documentation without adding unnecessary friction to the work.

How to Apply Best Practices

Start with the parts of the Docs-as-Code workflow that address problems your team already has. You don't need to introduce every tool or automate every step at once.

1. Update documentation with product changes: When a feature, API, or configuration changes, include the related documentation work in the development workflow. This makes it less likely that documentation is forgotten after the product change is merged.
2. Review documentation changes with the same as code changes: Use pull requests to make changes visible to reviewers and give them a place to check technical accuracy, clarity, and consistency before the documentation is published. Good documentation also needs to be clear and useful to the developer reading it.
3. Automate checks that machines can handle: Use CI to check for broken links, invalid Markdown, build failures, and other repeatable problems. Keep human review for questions that require context and judgment.
4. Define documentation ownership: Make it clear who is responsible for reviewing and updating documentation when the product changes. A version-controlled workflow makes changes easier to track, but it doesn't decide who needs to make them.
5. Keep the workflow proportional to the change: A small typo doesn't need the same review process as a major API change. Use lightweight checks for routine updates and stronger review when the documentation affects important product behavior.
6. Keep the workflow easy enough to use: If contributors need to navigate unnecessary tools, approvals, or complex automation to make a simple documentation change, they may avoid updating the content. The workflow should support maintenance rather than become another barrier to it.

When Does It Break Down

Docs as Code works best when the team can use the workflow without adding unnecessary friction. If contributors aren't comfortable with Git, Markdown, or pull requests, the process can become a barrier to making documentation changes instead of making them easier.

It can also break down when documentation ownership is unclear. Version control makes changes easier to track, but it doesn't decide who should update the documentation when a product changes. Teams still need clear ownership so documentation work doesn't get left between development and documentation teams.

Automation has limits as well. A documentation build can pass every automated check while the content is still inaccurate, incomplete, or difficult to understand. Automated checks can catch mechanical problems, but human reviewers still need to verify that the documentation reflects the product and makes sense to the reader.

Docs as Code works when the development practices add useful structure without making documentation harder to maintain.

Need help building a Docs-as-Code workflow?

Reclear helps developer-focused companies design documentation systems, improve technical content, and create workflows that keep docs aligned with product changes. Book a call with Reclear to discuss your documentation challenges and see how we can help your team maintain accurate, up-to-date content.