Skip to content

docs: fix #918 — hardware requirements kb per object#977

Open
jth-nw wants to merge 2 commits into
devfrom
fix/issue-918-hardware-requirements-kb-per-object
Open

docs: fix #918 — hardware requirements kb per object#977
jth-nw wants to merge 2 commits into
devfrom
fix/issue-918-hardware-requirements-kb-per-object

Conversation

@jth-nw
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@jth-nw jth-nw commented May 21, 2026

Closes #918

What changed

fix/issue-918-hardware-requirements-kb-per-object

Replace garbled '1012 KB' with '10 to 12 KB' in the SQL Server table,
and fix the sizing table entries where the bullet list formatting broke
'10 to 12 KB' into '10 • 12 KB per indexed object'.

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Documentation PR Review

Editorial Review

docs/dataclassification/5.7/introduction/requirements/hardwarerequirements.md

  • Clarity — Line 138: The SQL Server Requirements cells now read as continuous run-on strings ("Standard or Enterprise SQL Server 8 cores CPU, 32 GB RAM Disk Space Consumption: 10 to 12 KB per indexed object SSD storage"). With the broken <ul><li> separator removed, four distinct requirements (CPU, RAM, disk space consumption, storage type) are mashed together without delimiters, making the cell hard to scan. Suggested fix: separate the values with periods or <br>, for example: "Standard or Enterprise SQL Server. 8 cores CPU, 32 GB RAM. Disk Space Consumption: 10 to 12 KB per indexed object. SSD storage."
  • Completeness — Line 48: "Estimate required disk space assuming 10 to 12 KB per indexed object." doesn't tell the reader what to do with the range — should they use 10 KB for best case, 12 KB for worst case, or 12 KB to be safe? Suggested fix: clarify the intent, e.g., "Estimate required disk space assuming 10 to 12 KB per indexed object (use the higher value for conservative sizing)."

Summary

2 editorial suggestions across 1 file. Vale and Dale issues are auto-fixed separately.


What to do next:

Comment @claude on this PR followed by your instructions to get help:

  • @claude fix all issues — fix all editorial issues
  • @claude help improve the flow of this document — get writing assistance
  • @claude explain the voice issues — understand why something was flagged

You can ask Claude anything about the review or about Netwrix writing standards.

Automated fixes are only available for branches in this repository, not forks.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Auto-Fix Summary

17 issues fixed, 2 skipped across 1 files

Category Fixes
Substitutions 1
BoilerplateCrossRef (rewrite) 1
NoteThat (rewrite) 1
ReferToTheFollowing (rewrite) 1
Dale: passive-voice 7
Dale: positional-references 3
Dale: wordiness 3
Skipped (needs manual review) Reason

| docs/dataclassification/5.7/introduction/requirements/hardwarerequirements.md:78 — Dale: passive-voice | 'before they are archived' — agent of archival (Exchange system vs. admin) is intentionally unspecified; rewriting could alter meaning |
| docs/dataclassification/5.7/introduction/requirements/hardwarerequirements.md:101 — Dale: passive-voice | 'How many databases the data need to be classified in' — phrasing is awkward and intent is ambiguous; multiple valid rewrites would change meaning |

Ask @claude on this PR if you'd like an explanation of any fix.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Feedback: https://docs.netwrix.com/docs/dataclassification/5_7/introduction/requirements/hardwarerequirements

1 participant