Most of these guides were drafted by an AI agent against each tool's official documentation, and none has been verified by a person yet. That is not a confession buried in a footer — it is on the badge at the top of every guide, and it is the single thing the community can most usefully fix.
You use the tool at work, or you know its documentation well.
Read a guide against the official docs and score it against the rubric. This is the most valuable thing on this page: it is what moves a guide from "AI-drafted" to "reviewed", and your name goes on it.
You were reading and something did not match what you know.
A flag that no longer exists, a default that changed, an explanation that misleads. Takes two minutes, and every guide section has a link that opens this form already filled in.
You write technical Arabic and want more of this available in it.
Every page's interface is already in Arabic, but the guide bodies are not — that is the biggest gap in the Arabic edition. Agreeing shared terminology helps as much as translating prose.
A tool people in the region are being asked to use is missing.
Tell us which tool, who is being asked to use it, and what they get wrong without it. If you want to write it yourself, the authoring spec says exactly what a complete guide needs.
These apply to all 89 published guides, whoever wrote them. They exist because a confidently wrong guide is worse than no guide at all.
You do not need a GitHub account to help. Say what you found in any of the community channels and someone will open the issue with you.