|
|
|
|
@ -1,107 +1,90 @@
|
|
|
|
|
# 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.
|
|
|
|
|
The OpenAI Cookbook is a community-driven resource aimed at sharing knowledge in a way that is accessible, engaging, and enriching for all AI builders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Before contributing, read through the existing issues and pull requests to see if someone else is already working on something similar. That way you can avoid duplicating efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
|
|
## What makes a good cookbook?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Breakdown
|
|
|
|
|
**Useful:** Involves concepts or techniques that can be applied broadly, and can translate to practical uses and solving real-world problems. In your introduction, explain why the topic is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Relevance
|
|
|
|
|
**Novel or common:** Showcases new developments or techniques. Look out for new research on how to best use LLMs, or new models and capabilities in the API. Alternatively, you can identify common challenges. If you're doing something often, chances are others are too, and having reusable examples to reference can be very helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the content related to building with the OpenAI API?
|
|
|
|
|
**Creative:** Uses LLMs in creative and innovative ways, or combines multiple APIs and tools in novel ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Neutral:** Maintains a neutral stance on tools and products. While it's natural to have preferences for particular tools, a good guide avoids over-evangelizing or marketing specific products, ensuring integrity and inclusivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Uniqueness
|
|
|
|
|
**High quality:** Well structured, clear and complete. Writing good content ensures others can fully benefit from it. See the rubric below for more details on how we assess the quality of submissions to the Cookbook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does the content offer new insights or unique information compared to existing documentation?
|
|
|
|
|
## Rubric
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
To ensure the quality of submissions, we have established a rubric that assesses each contribution on various areas. The purpose of this rating system is to maintain a high standard of quality, relevance, and uniqueness. Each area is rated on a scale from 1 to 4. Contributions that score lower than a 3 in any of the areas will generally be rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Spelling and Grammar
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there spelling or grammatical errors present?
|
|
|
|
|
For additional advice on writing good documentation, refer to [What Makes Documentation Good](https://cookbook.openai.com/what_makes_documentation_good).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria | Description | Score |
|
|
|
|
|
| ------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- |
|
|
|
|
|
| Relevance | Is the content related to building with the OpenAI API? Is it useful? | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Uniqueness | Does the content offer new insights or unique information compared to existing documentation? | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Clarity | Is the language easy to understand? Are things well-explained? Is the title clear? | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Correctness | Are the facts, code snippets, and examples correct and reliable? Does everything execute correctly? | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Completeness | Is the content thorough and detailed? Are there things that weren’t explained fully? | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Grammar | Are there grammatical or spelling errors present? | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Clarity and Comprehensibility
|
|
|
|
|
### Breakdown
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the language easy to understand? Are things well-explained?
|
|
|
|
|
#### Relevance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Not relevant to AI or the OpenAI API. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Only tangentially relevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Relevant, but not very useful. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Relevant and useful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Accuracy and Correctness
|
|
|
|
|
#### Uniqueness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are the facts, code snippets, and examples correct and reliable? Does everything execute correctly? Is the information included up to date?
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | There are many other guides and examples like this. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Siginifcant overlap with others, but has some unique aspects. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Unique with some minor overlaps. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Completely unique, fresh insights or new information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#### Clarity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Usability
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Confusing and unclear. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Some sections are confusing and unclear. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Clear language, but structure is hard to follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Clear language and structure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the content well organized and easy to navigate? Is the code easy to run?
|
|
|
|
|
#### Correctness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Many errors, code doesn't execute. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Few errors and warnings. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | All code works, minor improvements needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Completely error free. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Completeness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the content thorough and detailed? Are there things that weren’t explained fully?
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Missing significant details and explanations. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Lacks some essential information. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Mostly complete, slight additions needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Complete and detailed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Grammar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Numerous spelling and grammatical errors. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Some grammatical and spelling errors. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Grammar is correct, but there are a few typos. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Completely free of spelling and grammatical errors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
simonpfish
8 months ago