I was looking into adding this to the docstring checks, but then noticed that it should not be necessary, the doctests do run fine with the space after the backticks and even with the extra text after the jldoctest. (the Markdown object is identical so we cannot detect this in the same way as the other docstring error)

For example in the logs on master we have:

page: ~/oscar-runners/runner-01/_work/Oscar.jl/Oscar.jl/experimental/AlgebraicStatistics/src/GaussianGraphicalModels.jl:138-142
  0.000875 seconds (945 allocations: 142.852 KiB)

(for the line with ``` jldoctest directed_ggm)

Good to know @benlorenz.
In this case, I would only see this PR here as a change towards consistency.

The further words like directed_ggm are used to let multiple jldoctests run in the same module/namespace, but this only works on markdown pages or if all with the same further word are part of the same docstring. Thus, here, they do not do anything and could just lead to confusion

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.41%. Comparing base (9627744) to head (599217a).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4463   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.41%   84.41%           
=======================================
  Files         668      668           
  Lines       88598    88598           
=======================================
+ Hits        74786    74788    +2     
+ Misses      13812    13810    -2     

The further words like directed_ggm are used to let multiple jldoctests run in the same module/namespace, but this only works on markdown pages or if all with the same further word are part of the same docstring. Thus, here, they do not do anything and could just lead to confusion

If I remember correctly, we initially used these "further words" a lot more in AlgebraicStatistics. Our intention was to let doctests run in the same namespace and have a sort of running example through the documentation page that does not repeat the same declarations over and over. I admit that this was misguided to begin with, since examples in the documentation should work out of context. But in any case, we discovered that the doctests with "further words" did not pass (for the reasons you mentioned) and abandoned this idea. It seems like we forgot to completely clean it up.

So this is a welcome change on our part.