MkDocs Proof Of Concept

Overview

This document defines an isolated proof of concept for a repository-wide code documentation system based on:

• MkDocs

• Material for MkDocs

• mkdocstrings

The goal is to validate whether this stack can become the future documentation platform for the repository and support a later workflow such as:

• update code documentation

The proof of concept should remain limited, isolated, and conflict-safe.

It should not attempt a full repository migration yet.

Instead, it should demonstrate:

• a documentation site configuration;

• one small API reference slice generated from the repository code;

• one or more existing repository-authored Markdown pages integrated into the site;

• a navigation structure that shows how guides and API reference could coexist.

Technical Approach

Why MkDocs Is The First Candidate To Test

The preceding evaluation selected the MkDocs + Material + mkdocstrings stack as the best fit for the current repository profile because:

• the repository is heavily Markdown-oriented;

• the Python codebase is important, but not the only documentation target;

• future docs should present guides and API reference in one coherent portal;

• the stack is well suited to a single rebuild command.

Official Setup Direction

The proof of concept should follow the current official setup model:

• MkDocs uses a root mkdocs.yml configuration file and a docs source directory;

• Material for MkDocs is enabled through the theme section;

• mkdocstrings is enabled through the plugins section;

• Python API reference blocks can then be embedded directly into Markdown pages.

Official references used for this planning note:

• MkDocs getting started: https://www.mkdocs.org/getting-started/

• MkDocs configuration: https://www.mkdocs.org/user-guide/configuration/

• Material for MkDocs getting started: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/getting-started/

• Material for MkDocs site creation: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/creating-your-site/

• mkdocstrings overview: https://mkdocstrings.github.io/

• mkdocstrings handlers: https://mkdocstrings.github.io/usage/handlers/

Recommended Proof-Of-Concept Scope

The proof of concept should document only a narrow, representative subset of the repository.

Recommended initial scope:

• one code reference page for:

  • scripts/models/feedforward_network.py

• one guide page imported from or mirrored after:

  • doc/guide/project_usage_guide.md

• one landing page describing the repository documentation portal concept

This scope is intentionally small because it should validate:

• visual quality;

• code-reference extraction quality;

• navigation quality;

• maintenance burden

without prematurely restructuring the full repository documentation tree.

Recommended Output Layout

Because the work is still in isolated mode, the proof of concept should not immediately become a canonical repository feature.

The safest isolated structure is:

• mkdocs.yml

• a standalone docs-source tree for the proof of concept, for example:

  • doc_site/

    • index.md

    • guide/

    • reference/

The exact folder name may be adjusted during implementation, but it should remain clearly separated from the existing canonical doc/ tree until synchronized integration is approved.

Recommended Navigation For The Proof Of Concept

Initial navigation should be intentionally small:

1. Home

2. Usage Guide

3. API Reference

   • FeedForward Network Module

This is enough to validate:

• narrative docs;

• generated Python API docs;

• cross-navigation between both.

Dependency Strategy

The proof of concept will likely require adding or tracking these dependencies:

• mkdocs

• mkdocs-material

• mkdocstrings[python]

However, because the work is still isolated:

• the proof of concept should not yet modify requirements.txt unless explicitly approved as part of implementation;

• dependency changes should remain part of the isolated branch until later synchronized integration.

Automation Goal

The proof of concept should be designed so it can later evolve into a stable repository command that:

• rebuilds the docs portal;

• refreshes API reference pages;

• validates that the documentation site still builds.

The proof-of-concept implementation should therefore aim to make the future automation path obvious, even if the final command is not yet fully formalized.

Involved Components

• scripts/models/feedforward_network.py Small representative Python module for generated API reference.

• doc/guide/project_usage_guide.md Representative narrative guide for portal integration.

• future proof-of-concept configuration:

  • mkdocs.yml

• future proof-of-concept docs source tree:

  • isolated docs-site source directory to be created during implementation

• readme.temp.md Isolated handoff log that must record the proof-of-concept work.

Implementation Steps

1. Keep this planning document as the approval gate for the proof-of-concept implementation.

2. After approval, create the isolated MkDocs proof-of-concept structure.

3. Add the minimal mkdocs.yml configuration.

4. Add one landing page and one guide page into the proof-of-concept docs source tree.

5. Add one API-reference page for scripts/models/feedforward_network.py using mkdocstrings.

6. Install or otherwise prepare the needed documentation dependencies in an isolated-safe way.

7. Build and preview the site locally.

8. Evaluate the resulting UX, navigation clarity, and API rendering quality.

9. Record the outcome in readme.temp.md so the synchronized integration phase can later decide whether to promote the proof of concept into a canonical repository documentation platform.