{"slug": "ai-code-rating-three-characters-that-say-how-ai-was-used-in-your-project", "title": "AI Code Rating – Three Characters That Say How AI Was Used in Your Project", "summary": "A developer built AI Code Rating, a three-character self-assessed rating published in an ACR.md file at a repository's root that records maintainer expertise (A–E), the share of code written by AI (0–4), and how carefully AI changes were reviewed (a–e). The spec, version 0.1 under CC BY 4.0, includes per-rating explainer pages, a validator, and a shields.io README badge, and the developer rates the project itself B4b, noting Claude Code wrote nearly all of its code while every change was directed and read before merging.", "body_md": "When I'm deciding whether to depend on a project, I'd like to know how it was built. Did a person write this? Did AI write it, with someone reading every change? Or did it go from a prompt to the main branch without anyone looking?\n\nToday you have to guess from the commit history. So I made [AI Code Rating](https://aicoderating.com), a three-character rating that a project publishes in an `ACR.md` file at the root of its repository.\n\n| Position | Range | What it says | \n|---|---|---|\n| Maintainer Expertise | `A` –`E` | How well the person responsible for the code knows this language and domain (in a solo project that's you; on a team, whoever approves changes), from Expert to Non-programmer | \n| AI Share | `0` –`4` | How much of the code AI wrote, from none to 1–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, and 76–100% | \n| Oversight | `a` –`e` | How carefully AI changes were checked, from Verified (read line by line and tested) to Unchecked (merged as generated) | \n\nHere are some examples.\n\n`A2b`` B0a``0`, Oversight is always `a`.` D4e`\nEvery rating has its own page that explains it, such as [aicoderating.com/A2b/](https://aicoderating.com/A2b/). The [examples page](https://aicoderating.com/examples/) works through common setups, with the reasoning for each position.\n\nAI Share describes how the code was made, not how good it is. An `A3a` project, where an expert wrote most of the code with AI and checked every change, can be stronger than a `C1e` project with a little AI code that nobody checked. The rating gives readers the facts and lets them decide what matters to them.\n\nMost AI disclosure standards use a single level, such as \"none\", \"assisted\", or \"generated\". That folds several questions into one answer. The question I think gets missed is who's doing the checking. The same AI-written code means something different when someone who could have written it reviews it than when nobody on the project can read it.\n\nThe level is self-assessed against two practical questions. Could the person responsible for the code have written it without AI, and can they explain every line? The [Related Work](https://aicoderating.com/related-work/) page compares AI Code Rating with AI-DECLARATION.md and other standards.\n\n```\n---\nrating: B4b\nspec: \"0.1\"\nupdated: 2026-11-07\n---\n\n# AI Code Rating\n\n**[ACR B4b](https://aicoderating.com/B4b/)** (Maintainer: Experienced · AI Share: 76–100% · Oversight: Reviewed)\n\nThis project is rated with [AI Code Rating](https://aicoderating.com/spec/0.1/), spec version 0.1.\n\n## How AI Was Used\n\nA few sentences in your own words.\n```\n\nThat's the actual rating of the AI Code Rating site. Claude Code wrote nearly all of its code and drafted most of its text, and I directed every change and read all of it before it went in. My older project [DomainMOD](https://github.com/domainmod/domainmod), written almost entirely by hand since 2010, is `B1b`.\n\n`ACR.md` file, with the rating linked to its page, and a README badge (Markdown, HTML, or reStructuredText) for you.\nThe badge comes from shields.io, so nothing about your project depends on the AI Code Rating site.\n\nYes, ratings are self-reported. But an inflated rating is easy to contradict, since commits, pull requests, and issues show how a project really works, and a rating that doesn't match them costs trust. An honest `D4c` tells readers more than a doubtful `B4b`.\n\nOnce your `ACR.md` passes the validator, [ask to be added](https://github.com/ai-code-rating/aicoderating.com/issues/new?template=add-project.yml) to the [Rated Projects](https://aicoderating.com/#rated) list on the home page. It's a short form that asks for the project's name, repository, rating, and a one-sentence description.\n\nThe [spec](https://aicoderating.com/spec/) is version 0.1, under CC BY 4.0, and the site code is MIT. Issues and suggestions are welcome [on GitHub](https://github.com/ai-code-rating/aicoderating.com/issues/new/choose).", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/ai-code-rating-three-characters-that-say-how-ai-was-used-in-your-project", "canonical_source": "https://dev.to/gregdotca/ai-code-rating-three-characters-that-say-how-ai-was-used-in-your-project-2hb0", "published_at": "2026-11-11 18:04:59+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-11-11 18:23:03.648778+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["ai-tools", "developer-tools", "ai-agents"], "entities": ["AI Code Rating", "Claude Code", "DomainMOD", "shields.io", "GitHub"], "also_reported_by": [], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/ai-code-rating-three-characters-that-say-how-ai-was-used-in-your-project", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/ai-code-rating-three-characters-that-say-how-ai-was-used-in-your-project.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/ai-code-rating-three-characters-that-say-how-ai-was-used-in-your-project.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/ai-code-rating-three-characters-that-say-how-ai-was-used-in-your-project.jsonld"}}