AI 服务暂时不可用，以下为来源正文，待恢复后补全翻译。
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 Minimum 80 Range 87–96 Mean 92 Page quality: before and after Before After Minimum 80 Architecture guide 94 → 95 Failure & retry guide 85 → 96 Automation guide 72 → 91 Authentication guide 84 → 95 Access control guide 84 → 91 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 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. 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. 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. 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.