ToolConfig – EditorConfig, extended to formatters and linters
Comments on “ToolConfig – EditorConfig, extended to formatters and linters”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
ToolConfig is a Show HN project that extends EditorConfig to cover formatters and linters. Developers write one TOML or Pkl source describing indentation, line width, and line endings, and the tool generates the .editorconfig that editors read along with each formatter's or linter's native configuration file, such as rustfmt.toml, .prettierrc.json…
Why it ranked
No. 117 of 155 with a score of 0.57. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.95) and technical depth (0.82), lowest on significance (0.38).
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Practical developer tool release for unifying editor and formatter/linter config; useful to builders, detailed docs, but a niche tool with self-reported claims and no independent evidence.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A substantive developer-tool release with detailed configuration model, supported tools, conflict handling, ownership rules, commands, and testing. It is highly actionable for teams managing formatter and linter consistency, though its broad significance remains niche.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.57total under rubric v2.2
- Significance0.38
- Reader interest0.66
- Audience breadth0.46
- Practical relevance0.75
- Substantiated0.71
- Technical depth0.82
- New information0.95
- Counts against: Promotional0.13
- Counts against: Overclaim0.15
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.28 | +0.24 | +0.092 |
| Reader interest | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.83 | 0.66 | 0.28 | +0.26 | +0.171 |
| Audience breadth | 0.57 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.17 | +0.13 | +0.060 |
| Practical relevance | 0.86 | 0.60 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.26 | +0.22 | +0.164 |
| Substantiated | 0.82 | 0.50 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.32 | +0.05 | +0.036 |
| Technical depth | 0.98 | 0.65 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.33 | +0.05 | +0.041 |
| New information | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.06 | +0.05 | +0.048 |
| Promotional | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.12 | −0.19 | −0.025 |
| Overclaim | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.12 | −0.11 | −0.017 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.569 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.569 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/117/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/117.svg" alt="Ranked #117 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="252" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 2 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.