blog-writing

Technical blog writing

The standard for a good article: readers can accomplish it, understand why, and are willing to read to the end.

How to understand the constraints

Look at the two types of rules separately:

Hard rules: facts, code, runnability, citations. Must be upheld, see technical-evidence.md。
Style direction: structure, rhythm, wording, formatting. Only the basis for judgment is given; how exactly to write it is up to you.

The same blog can have multiple reasonable approaches. Within the hard rules, choose the approach you judge to be best. When style suggestions conflict with readability, readability takes priority; do not make the article stiff just to satisfy a certain suggestion.

First solve the AI flavor

AI flavor is not a problem with a certain word; it is these habits:

Habit	Manifestation
Low information density	Every sentence is correct, and deleting it loses no information
Repetition	The same thing is explained once each in the body, the table, and the conclusion
Even structure	Each section is the same length, key points are all "first/second/finally", with no primary or secondary emphasis
Only describing, not judging	Piling up "can" "supports" "provides", without saying which to choose or where the pitfalls are
Self-justification and self-narration	Hanging external links to prove you are not talking nonsense, and discussing your own writing process in the body
Fake emotion	"Isn't it amazing?", lyrical elevation, baseless ratios

Revise accordingly:

Opening

AI flavor: With the rapid development of internet technology, permission control in enterprise-level backend systems has become increasingly important. This article will introduce the permission implementation of vue3-element-admin in detail from multiple aspects such as permission models, dynamic routing, and button permissions, hoping to help classmates in need.

After revision: The menu is hidden, but users can still enter the page by typing the address—the most common accident in permission systems. vue3-element-admin divides permissions into three layers: routing, buttons, and data. Hiding the menu only solves the entry problem of the first layer.

Principle paragraph

AI flavor: Dynamic routing is a very practical technology. It can dynamically generate routes according to user permissions, thereby improving system security. In actual development, we can implement permission control by configuring dynamic routes, which can effectively improve user experience.

After revision: The role of dynamic routing is to keep pages without permission out of the route table. Hiding the menu on the frontend only hides the entry; typing the address manually can still enter. If the route is not registered, the address cannot be matched, and the page simply cannot open.

Ending

AI flavor: In summary, this article has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the permission system, hoping to help everyone better understand permission control. If you find it helpful, welcome to like, bookmark, and follow. See you next time!

After revision: Among the three layers of permissions, the frontend is only responsible for experience; the real boundary is in the backend. If the data scope validation of the API is missed, no matter how strict the routing is, it cannot stop unauthorized data access.

Judgment method: Take each sentence out individually and ask "would deleting it lose information?" If yes, keep it; if no, delete it.

Say one piece of information only once. Repetition is the most persistent flaw in AI-written long-form content: no matter which section a reader enters from, the author wants them to see the full explanation, so every entry point explains it again, and the article grows more bloated the more it is written. The main text gives the full argument, the quick-reference table gives only a one-line index, and the same concluding sentence appears at most once in the entire article. After writing, scan through it once, and merge anything that appears more than twice.

Clarify three things before starting work

Who the reader is: a frontend lead currently choosing a stack, or a developer stuck on an error. When the reader changes, the level of detail changes.
One core problem: one article solves only one. When a second problem appears, delete it or write another article.
What the reader can do after reading: get it running, locate the issue, or make a judgment. This answer determines the article's skeleton.

Titles use the combination of "technical object + specific problem or action". For comparison examples, see style-guide.md。

Materials are taken from repository source code, logs, test results, and user materials. For the order of evidence collection, see technical-evidence.md。

How to write the main text

Title and introduction

The title lets people see at a glance what it discusses and what it solves. Technical terms and problems should be placed as early as possible, since mobile devices will truncate the title.

The introduction determines whether the reader stays. Two kinds of openings are effective:

Give the conclusion first: the first sentence is the judgment or result, the second sentence says why, and the third sentence explains the article's scope. Suitable for principles and stack selection.
Give the scenario first: the first sentence describes the specific phenomenon the reader is running into, and the second sentence points out where the problem is. Suitable for troubleshooting and hands-on practice.

For examples of bad openings (encyclopedic tone, self-narration tone, table-of-contents tone) and rewrites, see style-guide.md。

Do not let the introduction drag past two or three paragraphs; get into the main text as soon as possible. If the reader scans the first screen and still has not seen the first second-level heading, they leave.

Hands-on chapters

When readers follow along, they fear two things most: hidden dependencies between steps, and not knowing which step they are stuck on when something goes wrong.

Each key step should clearly state: what to do, why do it this way, how to confirm success, and where to check first if it fails. Put the environment and version before starting.

Do not pile configuration, code, and verification results into the same code block.A single code block should not exceed one screen(about 30 lines). If it exceeds that, excerpt it and keep only the part that supports the current conclusion, and provide a source code link for the full version. For the skeleton, see article-types.md。

Principles section

Explain the principle only until the reader can judge "why it is designed this way"; there is no need to annotate the source code line by line.

How to explain: first say what problem it solves, then give an accurate definition, then give a minimal example or call chain, and finally give the boundaries—what it governs and what it does not. If a simplification does not hold, it is better to omit it than to turn the paragraph into a specification document for the sake of rigor.

Explain only the actions the reader needs to take and the places where they will get stuck, not the technical details the author finds interesting. The way to judge: after deleting this principle, can the reader still correctly complete the operation? If yes, delete it.

Paragraphs and rhythm

One paragraph, one idea, with the concluding sentence placed early. Alternate long and short paragraphs; do not make the whole piece uniform.

Long paragraphs are the most direct signal to drive readers away: if they cannot see the end of the paragraph at a glance, readers skip it. In Chinese main text, keep a paragraph within four or five lines; any paragraph that fills an entire phone screen must be split. Warnings, conclusions, and transitions can be only one sentence.

Lists are only for content that is truly parallel, and tables are only for content that needs comparison along the same dimensions. Do not add empty lists, empty tables, or decorative images just to create visual rhythm.

For style comparison, see style-guide.md。

Before publishing, check only three things

Can the facts be traced: version, data, command output, citations. Don't write "verified" for code you haven't run, and don't write "50% improvement" for numbers you haven't tested.
Are promises kept: every claim in the title and introduction has corresponding content in the body.
Delete filler and repetition once more: remove sentences that read smoothly but carry no information, especially transitions like "it is worth noting" and "it should be pointed out."

Delivery format

If a finished draft is wanted: provide complete, continuous Markdown without explanatory notes mixed in.
If a rewrite is wanted: preserve the original meaning and useful information, and reorganize the structure and expression. When deleting redundant paragraphs, move the useful sentence from them to where it belongs instead of discarding it outright.
If a review is wanted: list issues and revision suggestions by degree of impact, and do not revise the entire text on your own.
If a platform version is wanted: see distribution.md。
Mark pending facts with 【待确认：具体问题】 and leave missing images marked with . Drafts may retain them; for a publish-ready draft, search once for the markers and confirm they are all cleared.