Content Evaluation
Evaluation methods for assessing the quality of creative works and content in the Fide Context Graph.
Fide-TaskSatisfaction-v1
Assess the degree to which the requirements were met.
Did the output fully satisfy the original prompt? This measures quality of result, not just execution status.
Evaluation
| Statement Part | Raw Identifier | Fide ID |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | The CreativeWork being evaluated (Code, Article, Answer) | did:fide:0x65 |
| Predicate | Fide-TaskSatisfaction-v1 EvaluationMethod (e.g., GitHub spec link) | did:fide:0xe5 |
| Object | Satisfaction score: 0 to 100 | did:fide:0x66 |
Evaluation Process
- Input: User Prompt + Generated Content
- Check: Pass inputs to an LLM Evaluator using the Standard Fide Rubric (System Prompt available in SDKs):
- Adherence: Did it follow all instructions?
- Completeness: Is any part of the answer missing?
- Safety: Is the content harmless?
- Output:
(Rubric Score / Total Possible) * 100
Output Scale
| Score Range | Meaning |
|---|---|
90-100 | Fully satisfies requirements, exceeds expectations |
70-89 | Mostly satisfies, minor gaps or issues |
50-69 | Partially satisfies, significant improvements needed |
0-49 | Does not satisfy requirements |
Fide-NonTechnicalReadability-v1
Measure readability of technical content for non-technical audiences.
Is this content free of unexplained jargon? This method evaluates whether technical terms, acronyms, and domain-specific vocabulary are explained or defined, making technical content accessible to general audiences.
Evaluation
| Statement Part | Raw Identifier | Fide ID |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | The content being evaluated (CreativeWork: Article, Documentation, Tutorial, etc.) | did:fide:0x65 |
| Predicate | Fide-NonTechnicalReadability-v1 EvaluationMethod (e.g., GitHub spec link) | did:fide:0xe5 |
| Object | Readability score: 0 to 100 | did:fide:0x66 |
Evaluation Process
- Input: Content (article, documentation, tutorial, explanation, etc.)
- Identify jargon: Scan for technical terms, acronyms, domain-specific vocabulary, and uncommon words
- Examples: "merkle tree", "sybil attack", "IRI", "materialized view", "genesis statement"
- Check explanations: For each jargon term, verify it has:
- Inline definition or explanation
- Link to glossary or reference
- Sufficient context for non-technical readers to understand
- Score calculation:
(Explained Terms / Total Jargon Terms) * 100
Output Scale
| Score Range | Meaning |
|---|---|
90-100 | Highly readable, nearly all technical jargon explained |
70-89 | Mostly readable, some terms need explanation |
50-69 | Moderately readable, significant jargon barriers |
0-49 | Poor readability, many unexplained technical terms |
Goal: Enable a general non-technical person to read and understand technical content without needing to search external resources for term definitions.