Tom Preston-Werner, co-founder of GitHub, proposed a radical idea in 2010: write your README before you write any code. "If you can't explain what you're building clearly enough for the README," he argued, "you don't understand what you're building." Fifteen years later, most projects still get this backwards - and it shows in their adoption rates.
Treat docs as product, not afterthought. Budget dedicated writers, track usage analytics, version docs with code. Bad docs kill adoption.
Here's the truth: documentation quality determines success more than feature completeness. The 2023 StackOverflow survey showed technical documentation and Stack Overflow remain the top resources for learning to code. You can have the best code in the world - if nobody can figure out how to use it, nobody will. Projects with excellent docs get adopted. Projects with poor docs get forked or forgotten.
I've watched open source projects succeed and fail for decades. The pattern is consistent: documentation separates the survivors from the also-rans.
The Readme Driven Development Philosophy
Tom Preston-Werner, co-founder of GitHub, proposed Readme Driven Development in 2010. The core idea: write your README before you write any code. If you can't explain what you're building clearly enough for the README, you don't understand what you're building.
This flips the traditional sequence. Instead of code-then-document, you document-then-code. The README becomes the design document. Writing it forces you to think through the user's perspective before you've written a line of implementation.
Preston-Werner argued: "Remember that feeling when you first started writing automated code tests and realized that you caught all kinds of errors? That's the exact same feeling you'll have if you write the Readme for your project before you write the actual code."
The README captures your vision when excitement and motivation are highest. Retroactive documentation, written after the code works, misses context and enthusiasm. The docs become grudging explanations rather than invitations.
Why Documentation Fails
Most documentation fails because it's treated as a cost center instead of a product:
Written last, if at all. Documentation happens after the "real work" is done. Budget is exhausted. Deadlines have passed. Writers are burnt out. The docs become minimal or absent.
Written by the wrong people. Developers who built the system write the docs. They know too much. They skip steps that seem obvious. They can't remember what it was like not to understand.
No ownership. Documentation belongs to everyone, which means it belongs to no one. Docs drift out of sync with code. Links break. Examples stop working. Nobody notices until users complain.
Wrong audience. Docs written for existing experts when they should be written for new users. Technical accuracy without pedagogical clarity. Correct but useless.
This is related to the sustainability problems I've written about with open source in general. Nobody budgets for the work that makes projects actually usable.
What Good Documentation Looks Like
The best-documented open source projects share common patterns:
Getting started in under 5 minutes. A new user can go from zero to working example in one page. No prerequisites assumed. Every step explicit.
Progressive disclosure. Quick start for beginners. Conceptual guides for intermediate users. API reference for experts. Each audience gets what they need without wading through what they don't.
Working examples that actually work. Code snippets are copy-pasteable and tested. Examples are kept in sync with the codebase through CI. Nothing is more frustrating than documentation that lies.
Clear mental models. Not just "how" but "why." Docs explain the concepts before the APIs. Users who understand the model can figure out the details.
Searchable and navigable. Good structure helps users find what they need. Good search helps when structure fails. Both matter.
Cloudflare makes their developer documentation open source, including the underlying framework. They view documentation as fundamental to the relationship with their community. Transparency in docs mirrors transparency in engineering.
Documentation as Adoption Strategy
Consider how documentation affects adoption:
First impressions. A developer evaluating your project reads the README first. If it's confusing or incomplete, they move on. Clear documentation is your welcome mat.
Onboarding friction. Every question not answered in docs becomes a GitHub issue, a Stack Overflow question, or an abandonment. Documentation scales; individual support doesn't.
Trust signal. Well-documented projects appear maintained and professional. Sparse documentation suggests abandonment or amateur hour. Users trust what they can understand.
Contribution enablement. Contributors need to understand the system before they can improve it. Documentation is the onboarding path for future maintainers.
As OpenSauced notes in their analysis of open source projects, maintainer burnout, documentation/onboarding, and sustainability are among the top challenges. Better documentation reduces maintainer burden by answering questions before they're asked.
Documentation-First Development
Some organizations go beyond README-first to full documentation-driven development:
Write the tutorial first. Before implementing a feature, write the tutorial for how users will use it. If the tutorial is awkward, the API design is probably wrong.
Docs in the same repo. Keep documentation and code together. Make documentation updates part of the same PR as code changes. This prevents drift.
Docs as merge requirements. No feature merges without documentation. This isn't bureaucracy - it's quality control. Undocumented features are unusable features.
Docs reviews like code reviews. Apply the same rigor to documentation that you apply to code. Review for clarity, accuracy, and completeness.
This is similar to what we see with open source sustainability - sustainable projects require more than just code. Documentation is part of the essential infrastructure that keeps projects healthy.
The Tooling Ecosystem
Modern documentation tooling has made good docs more accessible:
Docusaurus. Facebook's documentation generator has become the standard for many open source projects. Built on React, easy to customize, strong community.
Docsify. Lightweight and dynamic. No build step required. Good for smaller projects that want simple setup.
Hugo. Fast static site generation. Popular for documentation sites that need performance and flexibility.
GitBook. Combines documentation with collaboration features. Good for teams that want to edit docs together.
The tooling exists. The barrier isn't technical capability - it's priority. Organizations that prioritize documentation produce good docs. Organizations that don't, don't.
Measuring Documentation Quality
How do you know if your docs are working?
Time to first success. How long does it take a new user to get something working? Shorter is better. Measure this with user testing.
Support ticket topics. What questions do users ask? If the same questions appear repeatedly, the docs aren't answering them.
Documentation engagement. Which pages get read? Where do users drop off? Analytics reveal documentation gaps.
Search queries. What are users searching for? Failed searches indicate missing content.
Contribution patterns. Do new contributors succeed? If contribution docs aren't working, you lose potential maintainers.
The Commercial Open Source Advantage
Companies building commercial products on open source cores have discovered that documentation is a competitive advantage.
Stripe's documentation is legendary. It sets the standard for API docs. Developers choose Stripe partly because the docs make integration painless. The documentation is a product feature.
Supabase treats documentation as equal to code. Their docs are comprehensive, maintained, and designed for developer experience. This documentation investment drives adoption against competitors with similar features.
These companies understand: trust comes not only from code quality but also from the quality of writing that explains the code. Polish your writing like you polish your code.
Documentation Quick Wins
If your project's documentation needs work:
Start with the README. Make it clear, complete, and welcoming. Include installation, quick start, and links to more detailed docs.
Add a getting started guide. Walk a new user through the most common use case, step by step, with nothing assumed.
Document the happy path first. Cover the 80% case before the edge cases. Users need to succeed before they need to handle failures.
Test your docs. Have someone unfamiliar with the project follow them. Watch where they get stuck. Fix those spots.
Keep docs close to code. Same repository, same PRs, same review process. Documentation that lives separately dies separately.
Documentation Quality Scorecard
Rate your project's documentation on each dimension:
Documentation Quality Scorecard
Score your project's documentation. Low scores predict adoption struggles.
| Dimension | Score 0 (Broken) | Score 1 (Adequate) | Score 2 (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to First Success | >30 minutes to hello world | 10-30 minutes | <5 minutes, copy-paste works |
| Example Currency | Examples don't run | Most examples work | CI-tested, always current |
| Progressive Disclosure | One-size-fits-all | Beginner/advanced split | Quick start → concepts → API ref |
| Search Quality | No search or broken | Basic search works | Full-text with good results |
| Maintenance Cadence | Docs lag code by months | Updated with major releases | Same PR as code changes |
| Mental Model Coverage | Only "how", never "why" | Some conceptual content | Clear mental models first |
The Bottom Line
Documentation quality separates successful open source projects from abandoned experiments. The most adopted projects - React, PostgreSQL, Kubernetes - all have excellent documentation. This isn't coincidence.
Treating documentation as a product means writing it first, maintaining it continuously, and measuring its effectiveness. It means budgeting time for docs like you budget time for features. It means recognizing that code nobody can use is code that doesn't matter.
The open source community has shown that documentation-first development produces better software. The docs force clarity of thought. The clarity produces better APIs. The better APIs get adopted. The adoption justifies the documentation investment. It's a virtuous cycle that starts with taking documentation seriously.
"trust comes not only from code quality but also from the quality of writing that explains the code."
Sources
- Tom Preston-Werner: Readme Driven Development — The original essay proposing documentation-first development methodology
- OpenSauced: The Importance of Documentation in Open Source Projects — Analysis of how documentation enables adoption, collaboration, and project success
- Cloudflare: Open Source All The Way Down — Cloudflare's approach to open-sourcing their documentation and documentation framework
Documentation Review
Is your documentation helping or hurting adoption? Get an outside perspective.
Schedule Consultation