5.1 KiB
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.
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. |