jim/openai-cookbook
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/james-m-jordan/openai-cookbook.git synced 2025-05-09 19:32:38 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Improve contribution guidelines

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
simonpfish 2023-10-13 17:22:40 -07:00
parent 4e3d3da514
commit 484ab475c1
1 changed files with 64 additions and 81 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

145
CONTRIBUTING.md
View File

@ -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.
## What makes a good cookbook?
For additional guidelines on writing good documentation, refer to [What Makes Documentation Good](https://cookbook.openai.com/what_makes_documentation_good).
**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
| Criteria | Score |
| ----------------------------- | ----- |
| Relevance | |
| Uniqueness | |
| Spelling and Grammar | |
| Clarity and Comprehensibility | |
| Accuracy and Correctness | |
| Usability | |
| Completeness | |
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
#### 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. |
| 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. |
#### Uniqueness
Does the content offer new insights or unique information compared to existing documentation?
| 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 | 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. |
#### Clarity
#### Spelling and Grammar
| 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. |
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?
#### 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. |
| 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. |
#### Grammar
| 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. |