> If I could get clear and concise documentation that made it obvious what the correct template/standard was it would be easier to contribute.

I understand your frustration. Part of the inconsistencies you're seeing is the continuous level of sophistication that we build up as reviewers, though. Barring some kind of head injury, we're all getting smarter about how to review the modules contributors like you are writing. Module writing and reviewing are both pretty subjective -- otherwise you end up with too rigid a framework to do anything useful in. Please don't take the suggestions the wrong way.

@wchen-r7 is ultimately not just bikeshedding here, but suggesting a more appropriate alternative method that is clearly non-obvious. And I agree, it's non-obvious -- the documentation on `send_request_raw()` and `send_request_cgi()` in [http/client.rb](https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/lib/msf/core/exploit/http/client.rb) is identical for both methods, so there's no real clue that one is better than the other.

So, documentation-wise, that's clearly a failure on our part. We are working on better in-code documentation and better ways to come up with templates for common patterns, though, so please be patient. We've [committed to using YARD](https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit/blog/2013/03/21/weekly-update) as a documentation engine, so hopefully things get better soon there.

In the meantime -- Looking back over your commit history in particular, I see that you've used `send_request_raw()` a lot. All of @nmonkee's past modules live [here](https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/tree/master/modules/auxiliary/scanner/sap) and are `sap_soap_rfc_*.rb` . So, to offer a suggestion back -- it might have been more constructive on your part to offer one of these as a counter-example for @wchen-r7 to consider?

Thanks for the efforts, and thanks for bringing up the frustration. I try to be sensitive to that and if you have other suggestions on how we can more quickly improve the review process, please don't hold back.