[iRaindrop]

This PR is for collaborating on changes to the CNCF Techdocs analysis template(s).

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for cncf-techdocs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	59fd2c2
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/cncf-techdocs/deploys/6a4d7202a350d300087dc288
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-357--cncf-techdocs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[dwelsch-esi]

Since we're taking this opportunity to review and improve the analysis criteria, a couple of overall comments:

1. The analysis process evaluates against the maturity level (or the proposed maturity level) of the project. We don't explicitly map criteria requirements to maturity level, except briefly for website guidelines. Should we consider revising the criteria document to explictly map leveled criteria to the incubating and graduated levels?

2. The doc criteria don't include any process requirements. I understand that each project has its own processes, procedures, and culture. (Some process is alluded to, for example with requirements like "Who reviews and approves documentation pull requests?") On the other hand, process is really what a maturity model is about. Should we start thinking about including doc process in the criteria, especially for a graduated project? These would necessarily have to be general principles, adaptable to a range of OSS projects and their methodologies. For example, we ask if the documentation has versions and release notes, but not if the project has a versioning process.

A maintenance question for the CNCF TechDocs analysis docments: We duplicate the criteria in the analysis template. This makes the template easy to use but risks getting the template out of sync with the criteria. Is there a better way to do this?

[dwelsch-esi]

This isn't my area, but are all the branding criteria still relevant and important? Are there others that should be added?

[chalin]

Link-check issue should be resolved.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The minimum-requirements question conflicts with the template’s mandatory standards.

3 open issues

• Fix invalid Markdown link syntax for llms.txt · New
• Require all applicable guidelines to be satisfied · New
• Fix invalid Markdown link syntax for llms.txt · New

What changed in this PR

Updates CNCF Techdocs analysis guidance and templates for documentation assessments.

Changes:

• Adds AI-use disclosure and discoverability criteria.
• Refines assessment questions and makes implementation plans optional.
• Adjusts a relative link and the spelling dictionary.

File	Description
docs/​analysis/​templates/​analysis.md	Updates author guidance, assessment questions, and AI sections.
docs/​analysis/​howto.md	Removes a trailing slash from the analyses link.
docs/​analysis/​criteria.md	Refines evaluation criteria and adds AI discoverability guidance.
.cspell.yml	Allows the term llms.

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[nate-double-u]

While I agree that llms.txt is part of it, do we want to share the new CloMonitory checks here? https://clomonitor.io/docs/topics/checks/#agent-readiness

I think the actual check/evaluation we should do is the AFDocs test: https://afdocs.dev/

[nate-double-u]

I think this section is duplicated in docs/analysis/templates/analysis.md

[iRaindrop]

Yes, as it's a criteria area under Website and Infrastructure and is in sync with the template. Things that the website should do to make AI better.