Contribute

The rule that comes before everything

No entry is published unless its code has been run and verified.

If you take one thing from this page, take that. A catalogue whose code does not run is worthless, and a single wrong entry casts doubt on all the others.

In practice: each snippet lives in a real file in the repository, with a test beside it. The entry imports the file, it does not contain retyped code. If a test fails, the site build fails.

Where you are unsure about a point, submit the entry as status: draft. An acknowledged draft is useful; a plausible but wrong entry is not.

What makes a good entry

A need, phrased the way a user would say it. “Find duplicate records in a customer file”, not “Deduplication via vector similarity”.

Every rung, including the ones that do not fit. A rung that does not apply is marked as such, with a short, real reason. A blank cell reads as an oversight.

A breaking point demonstrated, not asserted. Each rung states what makes it fail. The test must contain a case that demonstrates that failure. It is the most important test on the entry: without it, what the page says about the limits of the approach is only an opinion.

A verdict you stand behind. Two or three sentences saying why this rung and not the next. The “recommended” badge can sit on any rung, N3 included.

Orders of magnitude, never figures. The cost vocabulary and the latency classes are fixed, and documented on the methodology page.

Both languages. French and English, each written in its own language, not translated word for word from the other. An entry with one language incomplete does not publish.

The required structure

An entry is a file at content/entries/<id>.mdx. Its content lives entirely in the file’s frontmatter, validated by a schema that rejects anything that does not conform.

The commented template is in the repository: content/entries/_TEMPLATE.mdx. Copy it, fill in every field, and run the checks.

Code goes in content/snippets/<id>/, one file per rung and per language:

content/snippets/my-need/
    n0.py   n0.test.py   n0.js   n0.test.js
    n1.py   n1.test.py   n1.js   n1.test.js

Both languages are systematic: Python and JavaScript, never one without the other. The full charter is in docs/sprints/CHARTE-EXTRAITS.md.

The process

1. Open an issue before writing, if the entry is not already on the roadmap. It saves you writing something that will be turned down for a reason someone could have told you earlier.
2. Fork the repository and work on a branch.
3. Run the checks locally: npm run check reproduces exactly what continuous integration does.
4. Open a pull request. The template will ask you to confirm that the code was run, with which command, that both languages are filled in, and where the figures come from.
5. Review. It looks at technical accuracy first, tone second. Expect questions about the breaking points: that is where hollow content hides.
6. Merge. The entry publishes on the next build.

Proposing an entry without writing code

You do not need to be a developer to make the catalogue better. If you have seen someone reach for a general-purpose model where a rule would have done, say so.

The form asks four things: the need in one sentence, the family that seems right to you, what you saw being done, and what you think would be enough. Nothing else.

What gets turned down

Unverified content. A snippet that has not been run, a breaking point asserted without a test, a claim you are not sure of.

Promoting a tool. If your entry exists to make a product known, it will be turned down, even if the product is good. The site has no partnerships and will not have any.

Figures without a source. No absolute prices, no grams of CO₂, no performance percentage that does not come from a benchmark you actually ran.

Legal advice. The regulatory block is factual and dated. No entry tells anyone they are compliant or not.

A value judgement about AI. Not in the text, not in the colour. The site compares tools on tasks; it does not campaign.

Filler text. A hollow paragraph standing in for content is worse than a field marked as a draft.

Reviewed on September 10, 2026