Looks good to me. Though I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to consistently use

`+foo+`

style (intended for source code literals that are included verbatim) instead of switching between those and just using simple backticks (which are only markers for using a monospace font, but which don't turn off other formatting). Using the "source code" markup might also be less error prone (because you can't forget to update it to this style when adding some underscores into it, for example).

applicable AsciiDoctor documentation:

• https://docs.asciidoctor.org/asciidoc/latest/syntax-quick-reference/#literals-and-source-code
• https://docs.asciidoctor.org/asciidoc/latest/text/monospace/

@decathorpe Thanks for quick review. I couldn't make my mind up on that, so I appreciate you expressing a preference :smile: I've swapped over to consistent backtick-pluses in the updates.

My concern that inclined me to this first proposal was the sequence:

`+++`

Which, programmer me, couldn't provide a sane explanation for why an asciidoc parser shouldn't treat that as starting a triple-plus macro passthrough sequence. AsciiDoctor does just render as a "+", though, and I figure that's intentional. An alternative would be to use pass:[+] for that, but then that's too bulky to want to use for every symbol, but then that's its own inconsistency.

If we ever need to add monospaced +++ somewhere in our guidelines, we can start arguing about the AsciiDoc spec :) Until then, the PR looks good to me now. :thumbsup: