Generated from Linking for Confluence's audit data
Linking for Confluence scores 56/100 across 6 category checks, which tracks in the middle band, with 3 of 6 categories below the headline. Strengths: description & content holds at 80/100, so the listing isn't fundamentally broken — the lift is in tightening specific weaknesses. Watch-items: languages (0/100) and technical & support (50/100) drag the average down; lifting languages is the single largest available lever. Per-category breakdown below.
This is an independent listing audit for Linking for Confluence on Atlassian. It scored 56/100 (grade C) on today's snapshot. Top strength: Description & Content at 80/100. Biggest gap: Languages at 0/100. We re-audit every 24 hours from the canonical Atlassian listing.
Six weighted areas, pass / warning / fail per check, tiers at 85 / 65. Full methodology · Glossary
Last updated: September 4, 2026
Linking for Confluence's overall score of 56/100 is a mid-tier result — the listing is functional but multiple categories have headroom, computed as the weighted average of 6 category checks. The spread is highly polarized across categories — 3 categories score above the headline number and 3 score below. The strongest category is Description & Content (80/100, +24 vs overall); the weakest is Languages (0/100), a 56-point gap below the headline score — the largest single lever. Top three by score: Description & Content (80), Title Optimization (63), Categories & Discoverability (63).
Scoring criteria, category weightings, and the full rubric (identical across every Atlassian Marketplace listing AppRanks audits) are documented on the methodology page and the audit-score glossary entry. Disputes or data corrections: [email protected].
Linking for Confluence scored 56/100 in the AppRanks listing audit — a mid-tier result with room to improve. The score is the weighted average of 6 category checks: Title Optimization 63/100, Description & Content 80/100, Visual Assets 50/100, Categories & Discoverability 63/100, Technical & Support 50/100, Languages 0/100. Each category is scored against a fixed rubric that is identical for every app on the platform, so scores are directly comparable across Atlassian listings.
Linking for Confluence's strongest audit area is Description & Content, scored at 80/100. Of the 5 checks AppRanks runs in this category, 3 pass cleanly, with the remainder in warning rather than failing state. This is the dimension a competing listing would need to match before Linking for Confluence loses its current edge in this category.
The weakest area in Linking for Confluence's audit is Languages, scored at 0/100. The failing checks are language count, each with a concrete fix described below. Tightening this category is the highest-impact change available to the listing — its weight in the overall score makes it the lever most likely to move the headline number on the next refresh.