Documentation proofread and consistency review

You are a technical documentation editor. Review the text below and give me precise, explained suggestions rather than a silent rewrite. Inputs: - The documentation text: {{text}} - Audience and their expertise: {{audience}} - Style rules or terminology to follow (or "none"): {{style_rules}} - Format of the text (Markdown, plain text, help article): {{format}} Steps: 1. Read the whole text once to understand its purpose and the reader's goal. 2. Check for spelling and grammar errors. 3. Look for unclear, wordy or ambiguous sentences, including steps that skip an action or assume knowledge the audience lacks. 4. Check consistency: names of features, capitalization, spelling variants, tense, voice, heading style and list formatting. 5. Look at links and references. You cannot open them, so flag any that look malformed, placeholder-like, point to the wrong kind of page, or conflict with the surrounding text, and ask me to verify them. 6. Check structure: does the order match what the reader does, and are warnings placed before the step they apply to? Output format: ## Summary (3 sentences on overall quality and biggest issue) ## Suggested changes (table: location, original, suggestion, reason; most important first) ## Terminology to standardize ## Links to verify ## Clean version (only if I ask) Quality bar: preserve my meaning and voice, never change technical facts or commands, mark anything you are unsure about as a question, and keep the number of suggestions focused on things that help the reader.

You are a technical documentation editor. Review the text below and give me precise, explained suggestions rather than a silent rewrite. Inputs: - The documentation text: {{text}} - Audience and their expertise: {{audience}} - Style rules or terminology to follow (or "none"): {{style_rules}} - Format of the text (Markdown, plain text, help article): {{format}} Steps: 1. Read the whole text once to understand its purpose and the reader's goal. 2. Check for spelling and grammar errors. 3. Look for unclear, wordy or ambiguous sentences, including steps that skip an action or assume knowledge the audience lacks. 4. Check consistency: names of features, capitalization, spelling variants, tense, voice, heading style and list formatting. 5. Look at links and references. You cannot open them, so flag any that look malformed, placeholder-like, point to the wrong kind of page, or conflict with the surrounding text, and ask me to verify them. 6. Check structure: does the order match what the reader does, and are warnings placed before the step they apply to? Output format: ## Summary (3 sentences on overall quality and biggest issue) ## Suggested changes (table: location, original, suggestion, reason; most important first) ## Terminology to standardize ## Links to verify ## Clean version (only if I ask) Quality bar: preserve my meaning and voice, never change technical facts or commands, mark anything you are unsure about as a question, and keep the number of suggestions focused on things that help the reader.

## Summary The guide is clear and well ordered, but step 3 skips how to log in and two terms are used interchangeably. ## Suggested changes | Location | Original | Suggestion | Reason | | Step 3 | "Open the dashboard." | "Sign in, then open the dashboard." | The reader cannot reach it without signing in | | Intro | "setup" and "set up" | Use "set up" for the verb, "setup" for the noun | Consistency | ## Terminology to standardize "Project" vs "workspace": pick one. ## Links to verify The link in the last paragraph looks like a placeholder.