@sanity/ailf-studio 0.1.27 → 0.2.0

package/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Sanity.io
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/dist/index.d.ts

@@ -249,6 +249,18 @@ declare const GLOSSARY: {
     readonly change: "Whether the change is meaningful: improved, regressed, or unchanged (within the noise threshold).";
     readonly lowScoringJudgments: "The grading model's explanations for tests that scored below 70/100.";
     readonly judgmentReason: "The grading model's natural language explanation of what went wrong.";
+    readonly healthStrong: "Feature areas scoring 80 or above. The docs are working well for these features — AI agents produce correct, complete implementations.";
+    readonly healthAttention: "Feature areas scoring 70–79. These are okay but could be improved — there may be gaps in specific dimensions like doc coverage or code correctness.";
+    readonly healthWeak: "Feature areas scoring below 70. The docs are not providing enough support for AI agents to implement these features correctly.";
+    readonly negativeDocLiftMetric: "Number of areas where the documentation actually hurts AI performance — the model scores higher without docs than with them. This usually means the docs contain outdated patterns or incorrect examples.";
+    readonly weakAreas: "Feature areas where the overall score is below 70. These need the most attention — low scores mean AI agents consistently struggle to implement these features.";
+    readonly docsHurt: "Areas where the floor score (no docs) is higher than the ceiling score (with docs). The documentation is actively misleading the model. These docs need to be rewritten or removed.";
+    readonly retrievalIssues: "Areas where AI agents can find less than 70% of the available doc quality. The docs exist and are good, but agents can't discover them through search. Consider improving page titles, metadata, or search engine indexing.";
+    readonly dimWeaknesses: "Individual grading dimensions scoring below 50 within an area. These are the specific skills where AI agents fail most — task completion (can it build the feature?), code correctness (is the code right?), or doc coverage (did it use the docs?).";
+    readonly efficiencyAnomalies: "Areas where agent efficiency exceeds 100% — meaning agents perform better with self-found docs than with gold-standard docs injected directly. This can indicate doc quality issues (injected docs confuse the model) or agent memorization.";
+    readonly docLiftWins: "Areas where documentation boosts AI performance by 5 or more points. Higher doc lift means the docs are providing crucial information that the model doesn't already know.";
+    readonly retrievalExcellence: "Areas where AI agents successfully find and use at least 85% of the available doc quality through web search. Good retrieval means your docs are well-indexed and easy for agents to discover.";
+    readonly strengths: "What's working well: high-scoring areas, dimensions where the docs are strong, and areas where AI agents successfully find and use the documentation.";
     readonly recommendations: "Prioritized remediation plan from gap analysis. Each recommendation identifies a documentation problem, the affected feature area, and the estimated score lift from fixing it.";
     readonly totalPotentialLift: "Aggregate potential score lift if all identified gaps were fixed. This is a conservative estimate — each gap targets the median of non-bottlenecked dimensions, not 100.";
     readonly failureMode: "The type of documentation problem: missing-docs (functionality not covered), incorrect-docs (factual errors), outdated-docs (stale API/patterns), or poor-structure (hard to find/understand).";