Mark every rules with levels of requirements.

Being a non-native English speaker I sometimes have difficulties reading the style guide, especially when it comes to a rule is partially overriding another.

It is clear to me that, say, #parens-as-args is a very strong requirement. It has no conflicting rules. It seems no one shall never ever break this rule.

On the other hand, for instance #ternary-operator has several follow-up rules to describe exceptional situations where this rule should not apply. It seems this rule is not as strong as #parens-as-args.

There also are rules that comes with options; like #consistent-string-literals. It seems the rule is even weaker than #ternary-operator.

I might be wrong. I could have misread something. But the problem is subtleness in the language, which makes it difficult to understand. Being a guide it should be as clear as possible.

I'd like to propose terminology described in RFC2119. They are not only Internet standard, but quite widely used -- which should suit the concept of this style guide.

Read the linked RFC2119 terminology and compare the examples in #parens-as-args, #ternary-operator, and #consistent-string-literals. Determine how requirement levels could be applied consistently across the style guide and what completion would mean for every rule to have an unambiguous level.