Twenty-three criteria, seven groups, every one scored 0–3 — against a rubric we publish rather than hide. Free on any public corpus, including your competitors'.
This is rubric v1. It is our opinion, argued for in the open — if you think a criterion is wrong, we would rather have the argument than the benefit of the doubt.
A + B = 40% (substance)
A + B = 40% (substance)
C + D = 25% (trust)
C + D = 25% (trust)
E = 10% (a shrinking channel)
F + G = 25% (a growing channel)
F + G = 25% (a growing channel)
Scoring is 0–3 per criterion. The weight bands above are how the rubric groups them — substance first, then whether the corpus can be trusted to be current, then the two distribution channels. We'd rather show you the working than round the number — and we version the rubric in public when it moves.
A 0–100 score with the group breakdown, so you can see whether you have a substance problem, a trust problem or a distribution problem.
Which pages fail which criteria, with the specific defect named — not a generic recommendation to improve your documentation.
Ordered by weight and effort, so the first ten fixes are the ten that move the number. Useful on its own, whether or not you work with us.
We'll crawl outward from there — sitemap, reference, changelog, whatever is publicly reachable — and score the corpus against the rubric above.
We score what a reader — or an agent — can reach without a login: public docs, public APIs, public academies, public MCP endpoints. We never crawl gated content, and we never ask you for credentials.
The audit runs on a queue and a human reads the report before it goes out, so expect a reply rather than a number appearing on screen. Rate-limited per domain.
No industry-standard docs score exists — we checked. This is our rubric, v1, published openly so you can argue with it. Criteria get merged and split as we calibrate, and we'll say so when they do.
Some criteria are measurable (link rot, Core Web Vitals, token ratio). Others need a person to read the page and decide whether a tutorial is actually a tutorial. We tell you which is which in the report.
Prefer to read first? Tour the platform or see the whole loop.
Nothing. The Docs Score on a public corpus is free and rate-limited. It's the front of our funnel and we'd rather you find it useful than gated — the paid work is the private internal-enablement assessment and the platform itself, and pricing for those isn't published yet. Talk to us.
No. Submit a URL and we send the report. If you want to talk about what to do with it, that's a separate conversation you have to start.
No. Public materials only — anything behind a login, a paywall or an allowlist is out of scope, and we don't accept credentials to get around that. The company-level internal pillar is assessed only in a paid engagement, with your participation.
Search visibility is one of the seven groups and carries ten percent. The other ninety percent is whether your documentation actually teaches, whether it can be trusted to be current, and whether an AI agent can read and cite it — which is where the traffic is going.
The URL and your email go to our inbox so we can send the report. We don't sell contact data, and you can ask us to delete the request at any time.
It means you'll get a fix queue. Most of it is work your own team can do, and the report is written so they can. We only make money if you decide the loop — regenerate, compile, certify — is worth buying.
Ingest and score are stages one and two. If the report makes the case, stages three to seven turn the same corpus into a living academy with real exams and verifiable credentials.