We love contributions to the Groq API Cookbook from AI chefs such as yourself and are thrilled that you're considering sharing your knowledge with our community! 🧑🍳 To help us make the most of your time and effort, please review the following guidelines prior to contributing.
When contributing to the Groq API Cookbook, we encourage submissions that are:
- Helpful: Focus on practical applications and techniques that can be broadly applied and translated into real-world use cases. If you find yourself using a particular method frequently, it's likely that others will as well, and having reusable examples to reference can be very helpful.
- High Quality: Ensure that your writing is well-structured, clear, and complete. Writing high-quality content ensures that others can fully benefit from it. Refer to the scorecard we use for assessing the quality of submissions.
- Fresh: Highlight new developments and techniques, such as cutting-edge research on how to best use large language models (LLMs), or new models and features of the API.
- Creative: Explore innovative and creative ways to use LLMs, or combine multiple APIs and tools in novel ways.
- Neutral: Maintain a neutral stance on tools and products to ensure inclusivity and integrity.
By following these guidelines, you can help us maintain a high-quality, informative, and engaging Cookbook that benefits the entire community. 💝
The below evaluation rubric helps us maintain high-quality standards for all submissions. By rating each contribution across several areas, we can ensure that the content is relevant, unique, and valuable to our developer community.
If a contribution scores below a 3 in any area, there's a good chance it may not be accepted. But don't worry! We encourage all contributors to review the rubric before writing content. Doing so can increase the likelihood of acceptance and help you create a fantastic resource for our users. Plus, it ensures that your contribution is comprehensive, clear, and helpful!
We can't wait to see what you come up with. 🚀
| Criteria | Description | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Usefulness | Is the submission helpful for the developer community? | |
| Originality | Does the submission include new details or insights compared to already existing resources? | |
| Clarity | Does the submission contain clear and concise without unnecessary details? | |
| Accuracy | Does the submission contain facts, correct, examples, and working code snippets? | |
| Depth | Does the submission contain thorough, easy-to-follow explanations? | |
| Grammar | Does the submission have correct grammar and spelling? |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Usefulness | Relevant and useful. | Relevant but not very useful. | Somewhat relevant. | Not relevant. |
| Originality | Completely original with new insights. | Original with minor overlaps. | Some original aspects, but significant overlap. | Significant overlap with existing resources. |
| Clarity | Clear format and language with no redundancy. | Clear language, confusing format. | Some sections unclear and redundant. | Confusing, unclear, and redundant. |
| Accuracy | Error free. | Code works, few improvements needed. | Few code errors and warnings. | Code doesn't execute. |
| Depth | Thorough and easy to follow. | Mostly easy to follow. | Missing some details. | Not easy to follow and has information gaps. |
| Grammar | Perfect grammar and spelling. | Correct grammar, few typos. | Some spelling/grammatical errors. | Many spelling/grammatical errors. |