openai-cookbook/CONTRIBUTING.md

# 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 all AI builders.

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.

## What makes a good cookbook?

**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.

**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.

**Creative:** Uses LLMs in creative and innovative ways, or combines multiple APIs and tools in novel ways.

**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.

**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.

## Rubric

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.

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 advice on writing good documentation, refer to [What Makes Documentation Good](https://cookbook.openai.com/what_makes_documentation_good).

| 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?                                                   |       |

### Breakdown

| Criteria     | 1                                     | 2                                             | 3                                        | 4                                      |
| ------------ | ------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- |
| Relevance    | Not relevant to AI or OpenAI API.     | Tangentially relevant.                        | Relevant but not very useful.            | Relevant and useful.                   |
| Uniqueness   | Many similar guides/examples.         | Some unique aspects, but significant overlap. | Unique with minor overlaps.              | Completely unique with fresh insights. |
| Clarity      | Confusing and unclear.                | Some sections unclear.                        | Clear language, unclear structure.       | Clear language and structure.          |
| Correctness  | Many errors, code doesn't execute.    | Few errors and warnings.                      | Code works, minor improvements needed.   | Completely error free.                 |
| Completeness | Missing significant portions.         | Lacks some explanations.                      | Mostly complete, minor additions needed. | Complete and detailed.                 |
| Grammar      | Numerous spelling/grammatical errors. | Some spelling/grammatical errors.             | Correct grammar, few typos.              | Perfect grammar.                       |