How PixelBench checks a tool and its explanations.

Tool scope comes first

Before adding a tool, we define the single question it is meant to answer. We avoid implying that an estimate is a guarantee or that a formatting helper can judge the quality of a piece of writing.

Testing approach

We test empty input, normal input, long input, punctuation, line breaks, non-ASCII characters where relevant, keyboard focus, mobile widths, and the page's error or empty states. We also check that the core operation still works when the network is unavailable after the page has loaded.

Writing and sources

Tool explanations are written for the person using the tool, not for a keyword list. When a page describes a convention or an estimate, we explain the assumption and link to a relevant reference when a stable primary or authoritative source exists. Reading time and word counts are explicitly presented as approximate or mechanical measures.

Corrections

If a statement is unclear or wrong, we review the report, reproduce the issue where possible, and update the page. Send corrections to uzairuabubakar2007@gmail.com with the page URL and the specific issue.

Advertising independence

Advertising, when present, does not determine tool results or editorial explanations. We do not ask users to click ads, and advertising is not placed inside a tool result in a way that could be mistaken for a control.

Last reviewed

This policy was last reviewed in November 2026. It may change as the workbench and its review process develop.