Build a Documentation Review Team With the Right Roles, Not More Approvers

Reviewing AI Docs Is a Team Sport

One person cannot be the product manager, the legal reviewer, the security reviewer, and the technical expert for every documentation PR an AI opens. Reviewing AI docs at volume needs a team. The catch is that "a team" on GitHub means GitHub accounts, GitHub seats, and a level of GitHub fluency your legal contact and your subject-matter experts do not have and do not want.

So teams improvise. The technical writer copies text into a Google Doc for the lawyer, pastes the lawyer's comments back into GitHub by hand, and becomes a human router between people who should have been able to talk to the document directly. For one-off reviews, a shareable link solves this well (see Share a Docs PR With External Reviewers, No GitHub Account). For a standing review team that handles a steady flow of PRs, you want something more durable than a link per PR.

Roles That Match How Review Actually Works

A review team is not a flat list of approvers. People play different parts, and the tool should reflect that. DraftView organizes a team around roles:

• Owner runs the organization: connects repositories, manages billing, and invites people.
• Approver can sign off. This is the person whose yes actually closes a review.
• Reviewer reads, comments, and suggests edits, without holding the sign-off authority.
• Viewer sees the queue and the documents without changing anything.

Roles keep the power where it belongs. Your subject-matter expert suggests precise corrections without being able to approve a release. Your approver holds a clear, accountable decision. Nobody gets handed more authority than their job needs.

Members Who Sign In by Email

Not everyone on a review team has a GitHub account, and forcing one on them is how you lose your best reviewers. DraftView lets a member join by email. They follow an invite, sign in with a link, and land directly on the queue. No GitHub account, no Git, no Markdown.

That raises a fair question: if a reviewer has no GitHub account, how does their feedback reach the PR? GitHub requires that anything posted to a repository comes from an authenticated GitHub account. DraftView respects that line. A GitHub-linked teammate verifies the email member's review and pushes it to the PR under their own account, and the pushed review credits the original reviewer by name. The judgment belongs to the reviewer who made it. The GitHub action belongs to the account that is allowed to take it.

This keeps a hard rule intact: DraftView never posts content to GitHub on behalf of someone who is not authenticated to do so themselves.

Pay for Active Reviewers, Not Seats

Most team tools charge per seat, which punishes you for inviting the reviewer you need twice a quarter. DraftView's Team plan charges for active reviewers instead.

The Team plan is $29 per organization per month and includes three active reviewers. Each additional active reviewer is $10 per month. An active reviewer is someone who actually reviewed that month: submitted edits or comments, signed off, or verified and pushed a teammate's review. A person you invited who did nothing this month costs nothing this month.

That pricing matches how review demand actually behaves. Your core reviewers work every week. Your legal contact and your occasional SME show up when a sensitive PR needs them. You invite everyone who might need to weigh in, and you pay for the ones who did.

A Team Around the Queue

Roles, email members, and active-reviewer pricing all point at the same goal: let the right people review the right PRs without fighting the tool. The reviewers read a rendered document instead of a raw diff. The approvers hold the sign-off. The owner sees who is active and what each PR is waiting on. Everyone works in one place, and the feedback lands back on GitHub as native Suggested Changes, where the PR lives.