> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.wardin.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Outcomes Scoring > Wardin's one score — accepted work per $100 of spend — and where every input comes from. Wardin has exactly one score: **accepted work per \$100 of spend.** It is not a productivity leaderboard and it does not reward cheapness for its own sake — quality lives directly in the formula, not as a separate weighted term bolted on afterward. This page is the in-product counterpart to the OUTCOMES screen's "How this is measured" panel (`ScoreExplainer`, also embedded on Console → Scoring). ## The formula ``` accepted sessions ÷ (spend ÷ 100) ``` A [session](/concepts/sessions) is **accepted** when it carries a quality signal — today, a [GitHub PR outcome](/concepts/sessions#sessions-as-a-quality-signal-github-pr-outcomes) (merged, closed, or reverted) for teams that opt in — whose mean score is `>= 0.5`. In practice a merged PR (`1.0`) clears the bar; a closed-unmerged or reverted PR (`0.0`) does not. Spending less only raises the score if accepted sessions hold; if accepted sessions drop as spend drops, the score does not improve. There is no cheapness-only path to a higher number, because cost only ever appears in the denominator. ## What "accepted" means Quality comes from a **GitHub PR outcome**, not a manual grade — there is no "accept" button on a receipt, and no LLM-as-judge step: * A **merged** pull request scores `1.0`. * A **closed, unmerged** pull request scores `0.0`. * A pull request that is later **reverted** re-scores back down to `0.0`. The linkage is a client-chosen `Wardin-Session-Id:` footer line in the PR body, matching the session id sent via `X-Wardin-Session-Id` on the requests that did the work — parsed straight from the GitHub `pull_request` webhook payload, no GitHub API calls in the hot path. It's opt-in per team (the repo needs a connected GitHub webhook) and per PR (the footer has to be present) — a PR without either produces **no signal, never a guessed one**. See [Sessions as a quality signal](/concepts/sessions#sessions-as-a-quality-signal-github-pr-outcomes) for the full mechanism and the [Claude Code guide](/guides/claude-code#grading-a-session-from-its-github-pr-outcome) for a copy-paste `CLAUDE.md` snippet. Manual per-receipt grading was deliberately removed: in a passive, high-volume system nobody grades individual receipts one at a time, and the person being measured can't credibly grade their own output. A peer-reviewed, branch-protected merge event is the live source instead — someone other than the author approved the work, which is audit-defensible in a way a self-click never is. ## Where each diagnostic number comes from OUTCOMES also shows a row of diagnostic tiles and a per-engineer scorecard. These are informational only — never blended into the headline ratio (a raw efficiency number is never shipped without a paired quality signal). | Signal | Source | Rail stage | | ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | | Cost / session | Session-grouped spend from gateway usage events | [LEDGER](/concepts/teams) | | Economy-tier mix | Share of requests served by haiku/mini/flash-class models | ROUTE | | Cache-assist rate | Exact + semantic cache hit share of requests | [Caching](/concepts/caching) | | Policy / budget blocks | Guardrail denials (model allowlist, prompt injection) and rate/budget limits — PII is redacted, not blocked | [Policies](/concepts/policies) | | Quality accept-rate | GitHub PR outcome for the session, for teams that opt in | [Evidence layer](/concepts/evidence-layer) | ## Coverage-gated ranking A ranked leaderboard only tells the truth once there's enough quality evidence behind it. The **earned-mode ranked leaderboard** unlocks once `>= 60%` of active interactive keys carry `>= 5` legitimate (deduplicated, non-self) quality signals in the trailing 30-day window. Below that threshold, OUTCOMES shows only the **per-engineer scorecard** — a set of independently defensible facts (cost/session, budget adherence, policy blocks, cache-assist rate, quality accept-rate, economy-tier mix) with **no composite score and no rank**, rather than a ranking built on too little quality evidence to be trustworthy. Quality figures backed by fewer than 3 signals are flagged `provisional` rather than shown as a settled number. ## Anti-gaming rules * **Quality is not self-reported.** The signal is a peer-reviewed, branch-protected merge event, not a button the developer being measured can click. * **CI/headless keys are excluded from every score, ratio, and ranking.** They have their own budget pool ([Sessions](/concepts/sessions)), not a developer's — mixing the two would let automated volume dilute a human quality signal. * **Raw token counts are never scored.** Every number in the pipeline is a session, a dollar, or a quality signal — never a token or line-of-code count, which are gameable once AI-assisted work is widespread. ## No configurable weights Wardin previously shipped a second score — a 0–100 weighted composite of cost efficiency, quality signal, and economy-tier-model usage with tenant-configurable weights. It has been removed entirely: a tunable weight is a cheapness knob by construction, since any blend of a cost term and a quality term admits a setting where cost dominates. Accepted-work-per-\$100 has no such setting — quality sits in the numerator, cost in the denominator, and the ratio has no term to lean on to hide a quality regression. Removing the knob, rather than defaulting it responsibly, is what makes the score gaming-resistant by design.