Editorial Standards
Last updated 2026-07-26
Content lives next to the code it describes
Every tool page, account page, and prompt on this site comes from a data file in the same codebase as the product itself, not from a separate CMS or a marketing team working from a spec. A page that describes manage_accounts exists because manage_accounts exists in the tool registry, with the same name, the same parameters, and the same behavior. If a tool is ever renamed or removed, its page has to change in the same commit or the build fails — there is no path for a page to keep describing a capability that quietly stopped existing.
Automated tests, not editorial trust, catch drift
A test suite compares the content in this site against the real registry, the real chart-of-accounts templates, and the real tool schemas on every change. It checks that every tool has exactly one page and every page names a real tool; that every account code, name, and type matches what the seeded chart actually creates; and that every prompt's listed tools are tools that genuinely exist. This isn't a claim about good intentions — it's a build that fails if the words and the code disagree.
Guards against thin and repetitive content
Programmatic content has an obvious failure mode: many pages that all say the same thing with the nouns swapped. A similarity check compares every pair of pages within a content type and fails the build if two are too alike — not by matching keywords, but by matching reused sentence structure. The threshold is a ratchet: if a future batch of pages pushes similarity up, the pages get rewritten, not the number relaxed.
No invented statistics, customers, or reviews
This site does not fabricate user counts, testimonials, review scores, or "trusted by" claims, and an automated check specifically looks for and rejects language that would. If a number, a quote, or a claim of social proof appears here, it should be something we can actually stand behind — and if we can't yet, the honest version is silence, not an invented placeholder.
Why you will not find "reviewed by a CPA" on these pages
No accountant, lawyer, or outside reviewer has signed off on this content, and we are not going to claim one has. Where that matters most — the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service — the pages say so directly and are marked as drafts pending professional review, rather than written in the confident voice of a document that's already been checked. The same standard applies everywhere else: a claim about what the product does, secures, or enforces is only published once it has actually been verified against the code, not asserted because it would read well.
What happens when a claim turns out to be wrong
The tool descriptions a model reads and the pages a person reads are held to the same rule: never assert more than the underlying code can prove. When a review finds a page or a tool description overstating something — claiming a rule gets applied when nothing reads it, for instance — the fix is to correct the language to match reality, not to quietly change the code's behavior to match a claim someone already made.