Editorial standards

SkillLift Labs is a small operation without a famous name attached to it. Asking you to trust a byline would not mean much, so instead we describe exactly how the Verilog Tutorial is built and what each claim on a page is worth.

How a page gets written

  1. We start from a real question — usually one a learner asked, or one the search results answer badly — and record what a reader is actually trying to find out.
  2. We check what the strong existing pages on that topic already cover, so we can be useful rather than redundant. We do not copy their wording, structure, diagrams, or code.
  3. Claims about language or tool behaviour are checked against primary sources: the simulator's own documentation, synthesis and lint tool documentation, published RTL style guides, and the language standard where we have access to it. Sources are listed on the page.
  4. Diagrams are drawn by us for the page. We do not reuse figures from other tutorials or textbooks.
  5. Code examples are written for the article. Where an example is marked as verified, an automated check compiles and runs it and compares the result against the output printed on the page.

What "verified" means here

It means a machine ran the code, not that an expert blessed the article. Those are separate claims and we report them separately on the technical review status page. A page only shows a verification block if an automated check actually executes its example; if the check does not cover it, the page stays silent rather than implying more than we can back.

Dates

A page's date changes when its content, technical claims, diagrams, or links actually changed. We do not refresh dates to look current, and we do not publish a "last reviewed" date for a review that did not happen.

Course material stays out

The tutorial is free and complete on its own terms, and it teaches the same concepts the paid course does. What it will not do is hand over the answers to a graded exercise: no expected outputs from hidden tests, no assessment answer keys, no finished capstone implementation. Where a public article and a course exercise cover the same ground, the article uses a different worked example on purpose.

Corrections

A wrong claim about hardware behaviour is worth correcting quickly and worth correcting visibly. Every substantial article links to a report a technical error form, which reaches a person. If you are right, we fix the page and update its date; we are not going to quietly edit around it.

What we do not claim

  • No invented author, reviewer, or credential.
  • No external peer review, unless and until that is true and named.
  • No claim that a page is exhaustive, or that it substitutes for the language standard.
  • No AI-generated article published without a human reading and verifying it first.