Rbcop, RuboCop rewritten in Rust with identical output
Comments on “Rbcop, RuboCop rewritten in Rust with identical output”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
rbcop is a Rust reimplementation of RuboCop 1.92.2, built on the Prism parser, aiming for byte-identical output and exit status. It implements all 613 default cops plus native versions of several popular plugins, and falls back to RuboCop for cops it does not implement.
Why it ranked
No. 8 of 43 with a score of 0.65. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.95) and substantiated (0.91), lowest on audience breadth (0.47). Placed No. 8, No. 10 by score alone: the placement terms moved other stories past it.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- A substantive Rust reimplementation of RuboCop with benchmarks and verification gates; practical for Ruby teams, release-style announcement, with detailed but mostly self-reported evidence and a narrow audience.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A highly detailed, reproducibly validated Rust reimplementation of RuboCop with broad compatibility and substantial measured speedups. It is directly useful to Ruby teams, though its audience and significance are narrower than general developer tooling.
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
0.65total under rubric v2.3
- Significance0.54
- Reader interest0.75
- Audience breadth0.47
- Practical relevance0.81
- Substantiated0.91
- Technical depth0.85
- New information0.95
- Counts against: Promotional0.13
- Counts against: Overclaim0.23
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.55 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.17 | +0.24 | +0.129 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.16 | +0.26 | +0.196 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.13 | +0.13 | +0.062 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.06 | +0.22 | +0.177 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.17 | +0.05 | +0.046 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.97 | 0.70 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.27 | +0.05 | +0.042 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.07 | +0.05 | +0.047 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.19 | −0.19 | −0.025 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.08 | 0.23 | 0.22 | −0.11 | −0.025 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.650 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.650 | ||||||
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/2026-11-02/8/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-02/8.svg" alt="Ranked #8 on Rubric, 2 Nov 2026" width="231" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 2 Nov 2026, 05:46 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.