|
|
|
|
|
# Welcome, AI Chef
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OpenAI Cookbook is a community-driven resource aimed at sharing knowledge in a way that is accessible, engaging, and enriching for everyone. To ensure the quality of submissions, we have established a rubric that assesses each contribution on various areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each area is rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The purpose of this rating system is to maintain a high standard of quality, relevance, and uniqueness in all contributions. Contributions that score lower than a 3 in any of the areas will generally be rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We encourage contributors to familiarize themselves with this rubric before writing content. Understanding the criteria not only increases the chances of your contribution being accepted, but also helps in creating a resource that is comprehensive, clear, and beneficial for all users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For additional guidelines on writing good documentation, refer to [What Makes Documentation Good](https://cookbook.openai.com/what_makes_documentation_good).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Rubric
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria | Score |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----------------------------- | ----- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Relevance | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Uniqueness | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spelling and Grammar | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Clarity and Comprehensibility | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Accuracy and Correctness | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Usability | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Completeness | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Breakdown
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Relevance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the content related to building with the OpenAI API?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Misaligned with the audience's needs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Partial alignment but needs work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Moderately aligned with the target audience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Well-aligned, mostly meets audience needs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Perfectly aligned with the audience's expectations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Uniqueness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does the content offer new insights or unique information compared to existing documentation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Content largely redundant with existing documentation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Significant overlap, some unique aspects. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Moderate uniqueness, balanced content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Mostly unique content, minor overlaps. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Completely unique, fresh insights or new information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Spelling and Grammar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there spelling or grammatical errors present?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Numerous spelling and grammatical errors present. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Several errors that need correction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Generally well-spelled and grammatically correct, a few errors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Almost entirely free of spelling and grammatical errors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Completely free of spelling and grammatical errors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Clarity and Comprehensibility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the language easy to understand? Are things well-explained?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Confusing, unclear language. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Some clarity, but requires significant improvement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Moderately clear, minor issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Clear language, minimal confusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Exceptionally clear and concise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Accuracy and Correctness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are the facts, code snippets, and examples correct and reliable? Does everything execute correctly? Is the information included up to date?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | -------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Many inaccuracies or misleading information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Some inaccuracies needing correction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Generally accurate, minor mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Highly accurate, slight improvements needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Completely accurate and thoroughly vetted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Usability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the content well organized and easy to navigate? Is the code easy to run?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Difficult to navigate or use. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Usable but needs significant improvements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | User-friendly, some navigational issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Highly usable, well-structured. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Extremely user-friendly and intuitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Completeness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the content thorough and detailed? Are there things that weren’t explained fully?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Missing significant content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Lacks some essential information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Mostly complete, minor gaps. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Comprehensive, slight additions needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Fully complete and all-encompassing. |
|
