Quality report

Documentation quality, measured.

Scores, progress, and how we verify them.

Scope
One complete documentation set
Overall review
Passed · All minimums cleared

Quality scores

100 = best · Line = minimum
Three documentation quality scores out of 100. Each bar includes its minimum passing score.
  • Codebase coverage Important systems and workflows are documented. Minimum passing score 85 90/100
  • Technical accuracy Documentation claims match the actual code. Minimum passing score 85 92/100
  • Developer usability The documentation is clear, navigable, and useful. Minimum passing score 80 91/100
92/100

Reviewed page average
Pages scored 87–96 · Minimum 80

Page quality: before and after

Before After Minimum 80
  1. Architecture guide 94 95
  2. Failure & retry guide 85 96
  3. Automation guide 72 91
  4. Authentication guide 84 95
  5. Access control guide 84 91
  6. Workflow guide 82 94
6/6 revised pages passed · After: 91–96 Each number is that page's quality score. Selected pages, not the full review.

History

  1. Focused check Page: 96/100 · Passed
    Details

    Exact repaired-page check. This validates one repaired path only and does not replace the published end-to-end evaluation.

  2. Broad review Pages: 68–84/100 · Did not pass
    Details

    Quality varied across evaluated documentation sets. Later focused verification is not a replacement broad review.

  3. End-to-end All scores: 90–92/100 · Passed
    Details

    One complete documentation set across four quality measures. This published evaluation describes one complete documentation set and does not predict every codebase.

  4. Recovery panel After: 91–96/100 · Passed
    Details

    The same six selected page cases were reviewed before and after repair. Earlier and recent outputs were independently rated against source evidence for the same selected cases. This panel is not the end-to-end evaluation and does not predict every codebase.

Methodology How scores are measured Source checked · Manual review · Fixed minimums

Generated documentation is checked against implementation evidence. Benchmark materials remain private.

Score meanings

Codebase coverage
Important systems and workflows are documented.
Technical accuracy
Documentation claims match the actual code.
Developer usability
The documentation is clear, navigable, and useful.
Reviewed page average
Average quality across every documentation page reviewed.

Minimum passing scores

  • Codebase coverage ≥ 85
  • Technical accuracy ≥ 85
  • Developer usability ≥ 80
  • Every reviewed page ≥ 80
  • No critical trust defects

Pass rule. A review passes only when every applicable numeric quality floor is met and the critical-false-claim check passes.

Review details
Review scope One complete generated documentation set.
Evaluation unit Each reviewed page, the complete published set, and the whole-codebase documentation plan.
Scoring Manual holistic rubric scores from 0–100 plus an explicitly labeled arithmetic mean of reviewed-page scores; neither is a percentage.
Evidence check Generated claims are manually reviewed against implementation evidence.
Reviewer protocol Source-faithful manual review using the same approved rubric.