[NO QA] Create .MD files with guidelines for writing help articles

[stephanieelliott]

Explanation of Change

Creates .MD files for humans and Melvin to reference as guidance when writing help articles.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/605102
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

N/A, no tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.mweb.mp4

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://8e9c6a49.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES
• HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS

[melvin-bot]

@QichenZhu Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[melvin-bot]

@situchan Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR introduces two new guideline documents intended to standardize how HelpDot articles are written: HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (UI element referencing rules) and HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md (article structure and formatting rules). The intent is strong and the separation of concerns between the two files is sensible. However, there are several internal contradictions, structural issues, and gaps that should be addressed before these become the authoritative reference for both human authors and AI assistants.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 7/10 - Both documents are clearly written with short, scannable bullet points and good use of correct/incorrect examples. However, some sections are repetitive and could be consolidated. The imperative tone is consistent but occasionally borders on terse where a brief rationale would help authors understand why a rule exists.
• AI Readiness: 5/10 - Neither document includes YAML metadata (title, description, keywords, internalScope), which is a notable omission given that the authoring guidelines themselves mandate YAML metadata for every article. The heading hierarchy uses multiple # top-level sections within the same document, which conflicts with the "One primary # heading" rule stated in the authoring guidelines. Headings like "Forbidden" and "Requirements" in the authoring guidelines are exactly the kind of generic headings that the same document forbids.
• Style Compliance: 6/10 - The documents largely follow Expensify terminology conventions, but there are inconsistencies with the existing article template (docs/TEMPLATE.md) and current published articles. Several rules stated as mandatory would retroactively invalidate the existing template and many live articles without acknowledgment or migration guidance.

Key Findings

Internal contradictions that must be resolved:

• HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 2 forbids the heading "FAQs," yet Section 4 says articles should include "An FAQ section (if needed)." Existing published articles (e.g., Create-expense-categories.md) use # FAQ as a heading. The guidelines need to clarify whether "FAQ" is permitted as a heading or not, and if the prohibition only applies to the plural "FAQs."
• HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md states "Only # and ## used," but the document itself uses # and ## and effectively treats numbered section headers (e.g., # 1. Core Principles) as top-level headings. A guideline document should exemplify its own rules.
• HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 2 forbids the headings "Overview," "Introduction," and "Setup," but the existing docs/TEMPLATE.md uses # Overview, # How-to, and # Deep Dive as its standard structure. The relationship between these two documents needs to be explicitly addressed -- does this new spec supersede the template?

Conflicts with existing published articles:

• Published articles like Create-expense-categories.md use patterns such as ### Learned Categorization (three levels deep) and # FAQ. These guidelines would invalidate those patterns without providing migration guidance.
• The existing template in docs/TEMPLATE.md references {% include faq-begin.md %} / {% include faq-end.md %} for FAQ sections. The new guidelines do not mention these Jekyll includes at all.

Self-referential breadcrumb rule:

• In HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, the "Breadcrumb Referencing Rule" section says breadcrumbs must follow the formatting rules defined in /docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md -- the same document. This circular reference does not provide useful guidance. The rule should either specify the actual formatting convention inline or reference a different, more specific section within the document.

Missing YAML metadata on both files:

• Both guideline documents lack the YAML front matter (title, description, keywords, internalScope) that HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md itself requires for every article. While these are internal reference documents rather than published help articles, adding metadata would serve as a good example and ensure consistency if these are ever processed by the site build or AI retrieval systems.

Inconsistent list indentation in HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md:

• Sections 4, 6, 7, and 8 use a leading space before list items ( - item) while Section 5 uses standard indentation (- item). This inconsistency is minor but worth normalizing in a document that prescribes formatting standards.

Positive aspects worth highlighting:

• The three dots menu rule with the visual symbol and clear correct/incorrect examples is excellent and fills a real gap in current documentation standards.
• The cross-platform navigation hierarchy (separate instructions when different, unified when same, explicit "not available on mobile" when applicable) is well-structured and practical.
• The correct/incorrect example pairs throughout the naming conventions document are immediately useful and leave little room for misinterpretation.
• Separating UI naming conventions from article structure into two documents is a sound architectural decision.

Recommendations

1. Resolve the FAQ contradiction. Decide whether "FAQ" (or "FAQs") is a permitted heading. If it is permitted, remove it from the forbidden list and specify the exact allowed format (e.g., # FAQ but not # FAQs). If it is truly forbidden, explain what should replace it and address the existing template and published articles.

2. Address the relationship with docs/TEMPLATE.md. Add a note clarifying whether these new guidelines supersede, complement, or replace the existing template. If they supersede it, a follow-up PR should update or deprecate TEMPLATE.md.

3. Fix the self-referential breadcrumb rule. Either specify the breadcrumb formatting convention directly in that section or reference a specific subsection (e.g., "follow the Button Naming Standards and Tab Naming Standards defined above").

4. Make both documents follow their own rules. Use only one # heading per document (the document title), and make all other section headers ##. Rename generic headings like "Forbidden," "Requirements," and "Purpose" to be more descriptive and task-based (e.g., "## Headings to avoid in HelpDot articles," "## What every heading must include").

5. Normalize the list indentation in HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md to be consistent across all sections.

6. Add a note about the internalScope format. The YAML metadata example in Section 3 uses audience, covers, and doesNotCover as nested keys, but existing published articles use a single string in the format Audience is [role]. Covers [topic]. Does not cover [exclusions]. Clarify which format is canonical.

7. Consider adding YAML front matter to both guideline documents as a leading-by-example practice, even if they are not published to the help site.

Files Reviewed

• docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (new, 231 lines) -- UI element referencing rules. Well-structured with strong examples. Has a self-referential breadcrumb rule and heading hierarchy that contradicts the companion document.
• docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md (new, 156 lines) -- Article authoring spec. Good coverage of structure and AI retrieval optimization. Has internal contradictions around FAQ headings, conflicts with the existing template, and does not follow its own heading rules.

[QichenZhu]

Hi @stephanieelliott, I was tagged by the bot. Is there anything I can help with here?

[situchan]

No need C+ review. Just approving to assign engineer

[melvin-bot]

@mjasikowski Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[melvin-bot]

🎯 @situchan, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: #83658.

[mjasikowski]

@stephanieelliott do you want to address the AI reviewer comments?

[stephanieelliott]

thanks @mjasikowski, applied the relevant bot comments and dismissed the rest.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mjasikowski in version: 9.3.28-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mjasikowski in version: 9.3.30-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.3.30-3 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅