Depending on the solution, yes. But some detailed review from a new user might be useful as well. A recent community guide, that has been moved since, makes me think that this proposal would not be that useful.
It can go either way. If the guide is high quality after a thorough review, then the subcategory can become useful for curation, whereas if the guide is poor quality, then the subcategory is not necessary.
Simply following the guide itself until the instructions end. Regardless if it literally checks out or not, the reviewer can edit the guide if there are any errors and may optionally provide a (detailed) commit comment at the bottom of the topic, acting like a changelog/ledger for future reviewers.
Any interested Qubes OS user against the guide’s requirements. If you want a more conservative and explicit suggestion, @trust_level_3 and up.
Evidence can optionally be provided using screenshots.
I think we could play with this and see where we land (CC @moderators)
I have enabled the “last edited by” just to see how it looks (at least from an accountability standpoint). As for the “checked by” I am still a bit confused about who it considers a reviewer and how does someone approve it.
The “last checked by” field might be useless: anyone with a trust level of 1 or more can use it and it doesn’t keep the log (I just “checked” this topic Installing Software in Qubes (all methods) on top of your own check).
I can check it with a TL3. And anyway, I don’t think it is great. Maybe introducing some kind of manual content at the end of a guide might be better? Like:
Checked by
@parulin (2026-05-03) - I have not tested the snap method
