DEV Community

yanlong wang
yanlong wang

Posted on Originally published at tools.aicreditsapi.com

Readability Scores for Technical Documentation: Flesch, Hemingway, and Code-Aware Tools

Readability scores - Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade, Gunning Fog - were built on prose. Technical documentation breaks their assumptions: a line of code counts as a "sentence", identifiers count as "syllables", and your README's grade level quietly becomes nonsense. Here is how the main options compare.

The Tools

Tool What it gives you Code handling
Word / Google Docs built-ins Flesch-Kincaid grade None - code counts as text
Hemingway Editor Grade level + visual density None - paste code and the grade tanks
Hemingway Editor Plus ~$10/mo, AI rewrites None
Online Flesch calculators Raw score None
Lint readability analyzer Flesch family scores Code lines excluded from the math

Why Excluding Code Matters

A README that is 60% prose and 40% code will score as "very difficult" on any prose-based tool - not because the writing is bad, but because kubectl get pods -o jsonpath=... reads as an unreadable sentence. The practical failure: writers then "simplify" good documentation to please a number.

A code-aware analyzer splits the document first. Prose gets scored; code blocks, commands, and inline identifiers are skipped. The resulting number describes the thing you can actually edit - your sentences.

How to Use Scores Without Obsessing

  • Target range, not a number: for developer docs, Flesch Reading Ease 40-60 ("difficult" to "plain English") is normal and fine
  • Watch the trend: a jump from 52 to 30 after adding a section is a signal; the absolute number is not
  • Sentence length beats syllable counting: for technical audiences, long sentences are the real killer - fix those first

Try Lint's readability analyzer - deterministic formulas, code excluded, free tier, no signup. Pair it with the grammar checker on the same text.

Top comments (0)