Independent knowledge base software guide Evidence-led Updated 2026
Free browser-local checker – No sign-up
Knowledge Base Article Quality & Accessibility Checker
Review an Article, FAQ, SOP, or How-to for structure, clarity, task completeness, and author-controlled accessibility signals. Every finding shows the rule, evidence, location, and a practical next step.
Evidence, not a magic gradeAutomated findings stay separate by category and severity; no single score hides the trade-offs.
Private by defaultYour text is processed in this tab and is not added to analytics. Raw content is excluded from exports by default.
Human review remains requiredThe checker cannot establish factual accuracy, accessibility, or WCAG conformance.
Nothing is uploaded by this checker. Save a project JSON if you want to resume later.
Article review report
Use this report to fix the draft, record what needs human validation, and retain evidence of the review method. It is not a publication approval or conformance certificate.
Category view
Counts stay separate so one category cannot compensate for a serious gap in another.
Prioritized remediation
Address errors first, then warnings and advisory improvements. A human can reject any automated suggestion when the context proves it inappropriate.
Manual decision record
Swipe the table horizontally on a small screen.
| Review gate | Status | Why automation stops here |
|---|
Next in the workflowAdd accepted article decisions to an inventory-wide content audit.
Audit the content inventoryView all free toolsWhat the checker evaluates
KBAQC-1.0 applies deterministic, explainable rules to author-controlled content signals. It keeps matters of judgment in a separate manual review queue.
Headings and scanning
Detects heading-level skips, thin structure in long content, long sections, placeholders, and missing ordered steps for procedural patterns.
Article, FAQ, SOP, or How-to
Looks for observable pattern elements such as questions and answers, prerequisites, ordered steps, verification, exception handling, and escalation.
Reviewable language signals
Measures sentence and paragraph length, duplicate passages, undefined abbreviations, and descriptive readability estimates without claiming audience comprehension.
Author-controlled signals
Flags missing or suspicious image alternatives, vague or empty links, sensory-only cues, and table evidence that needs review.
Ownership and currentness
Preserves audience, outcome, risk, owner, version, last-verified date, and unresolved human approvals alongside the findings.
Potentially sensitive input
Warns about obvious credential patterns and unresolved placeholders. It never sends the article to an external model or rewriting service.
Transparent methodology: KBAQC-1.0
A result is useful only when another person can understand how it was produced. The report therefore records the detected evidence, threshold, location, and suggested action rather than collapsing unlike checks into one quality score.
| Layer | What the checker does | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Parsing | Recognizes plain text, Markdown, or HTML; counts headings, paragraphs, lists, steps, links, images, tables, and text measures. | That the published page preserves the same semantics or reading order. |
| Deterministic checks | Applies versioned conditions and attaches a category, severity, location, evidence excerpt, and suggested fix. | That every flag is a defect, or that every unflagged passage is correct. |
| Pattern completeness | Looks for observable elements expected in Article, FAQ, SOP, and How-to patterns. | That the detected section is complete, accurate, or appropriate for the audience. |
| Accessibility-ready authoring | Checks author-controlled signals including alt attributes, link names, headings, tables, and sensory wording. | WCAG conformance or rendered-page accessibility. |
| Manual gates | Records decisions requiring subject knowledge, rendered-page testing, or assistive-technology review. | Human approval until a qualified reviewer actually performs and records the check. |
Method sources: the method is informed by W3C guidance on evaluation-tool limits, WCAG guidance for non-text content, W3C guidance for headings and labels, Google’s documentation heading guidance, and Microsoft’s step-by-step guidance. Thresholds are editorial heuristics, not compliance criteria.
What this tool cannot certify
Automated checks cover only a subset of a real article and page review.
This is a content-authoring review, not a WCAG conformance audit. It cannot test the published page’s CSS, contrast, keyboard behavior, focus, zoom and reflow, assistive-technology output, dynamic states, analytics performance, search ranking, factual accuracy, legal compliance, or ticket deflection.
The report can help an editor locate risks and organize evidence. Publication approval still belongs to the people who know the product, audience, source material, and risk boundary. W3C notes that evaluation tools cannot determine accessibility on their own and that knowledgeable human evaluation is required.
Frequently asked questions
Does the checker upload or save my article?
No. The checker processes the input in the current browser tab and does not use network requests or persistent browser storage. You can deliberately save a project JSON; the raw article is excluded unless you select the include-content option.
Does a clear report mean the article is accessible?
No. It means the configured automated rules did not find certain author-controlled signals. Accessibility requires human judgment and testing of the rendered experience, including keyboard, focus, contrast, zoom and reflow, screen readers, and dynamic behavior.
Why is there no overall quality score?
A composite number can let many low-risk passes hide one serious defect. The report keeps categories, severities, evidence, and unresolved manual decisions separate so a reviewer can apply the article’s real risk context.
Can it check plain text?
Yes, but plain text cannot preserve HTML heading, link, image, table, or list semantics. The report marks unavailable checks as not testable rather than treating them as passes.
Which content patterns are supported?
Version 1 supports Article, FAQ, SOP, and How-to. Each pattern uses observable structure and wording signals; a reviewer must still decide whether those elements are complete and correct.
Can I use the report as a publication approval?
No. Use it as review evidence. Factual verification, audience validation, specialist approval, and rendered-page accessibility testing remain separate responsibilities.
Continue the knowledge workflow
Draft, review, audit, and govern content with each decision preserved at the right level.
KBAQC-1.0 produces deterministic review evidence, not an accessibility, accuracy, compliance, performance, or publication certification. Re-run the checker after material content or methodology changes.