filehugger.comFile Health Check
Inspect file identity, structural health, metadata exposure, PDF text coverage, OCR need and safer next steps in one local report.
Analyse your own file
Choose a PDF, common images, text/data files and ZIP-based Office containers file
Drop it here or browse this device
Your original file is analysed in this browser and is not uploaded. This tool has no AI or server-processing step.
What happens to the file
- Default processing
- Browser-only JavaScript, PDF.js, pdf-lib and Tesseract where the task needs them
- Accepted input
- PDF, common images, text/data files and ZIP-based Office containers
- Report contract
- File Intelligence JSON schema 1.0 plus a flattened CSV view
- Optional AI
- Not used by this tool
Sample PDF: 2 pages, matching signature, searchable text, author metadata present, no encryption. Version 1.0 reports 91/100 with 89/100 parser confidence. Review the author field before external sharing.
How the result is calculated
The engine reads the leading bytes, compares the signature with the filename, attempts a format-aware parse, counts PDF pages and extractable text, samples CSV row width, validates JSON and inventories supported metadata. Penalties are applied only to evidenced findings.
Health score = 100 − 30×critical − 18×high − 9×medium − 3×low. Confidence is separate and reflects parser coverage, not the health score.
Supported and unsupported cases
| Input or situation | What version 1.0.0 checks | What it does not claim |
|---|---|---|
| Signature, openability, page count, text density, selected metadata and accessibility indicators | Encrypted files without a password; every ISO 32000 edge case | |
| JPEG / PNG | Signature, dimensions and common EXIF/PNG metadata containers | Every maker-note or proprietary metadata namespace |
| CSV / JSON / text | Readability, JSON syntax and sampled CSV column consistency | Business-schema validity or semantic correctness |
| Office ZIP containers | Container identity and high-level risk guidance | Macro analysis, embedded-object antivirus scanning |
What the confidence score means
Confidence describes how much of the file the published parser could inspect and how specific the evidence was. It is deliberately separate from the result score. A 95/100 confidence value does not mean “95% likely to be true,” and a high health/readiness score does not certify safety, compliance or factual correctness.
Comparison with other approaches
| Approach | Useful strength | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Local health report | Local, multi-signal, evidence per finding, JSON/CSV export | Heuristic diagnosis |
| Operating-system file properties | Fast size/type view | No structural, OCR or privacy interpretation |
| Antivirus scan | Malware signatures and behavioural checks | Not a document quality or metadata report |
| Format validator | Deep conformance for one standard | Usually narrower and may require specialist software |
6/6 fixtures passed (100%)
Dataset: FH-INT-SYNTH-2026-07. Scope: PDF/JPEG/PNG signatures, mismatch detection, JSON validity and CSV row-width fixtures. Fixtures contain generated data only; no visitor file or personal record is collected.
When this result can be wrong
A healthy score does not prove that the content is correct, malware-free or standards-conformant. Proprietary metadata, encrypted objects and damage beyond the sampled/parser-visible layer can be missed.
Keep the original file, test the output in the receiving application and escalate high-stakes legal, financial, medical, accessibility or security decisions to a qualified reviewer.
Version and accuracy change log
| Release | Date | Calculation/coverage change | Re-test requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0.0 | 2026-07-29 | Initial public engine, report schema, thresholds, synthetic fixtures and sample files. | All published fixtures and one browser sample per tool. |
Downloadable evidence, not a black-box verdict
After analysis, use Download JSON report for structured evidence or Download CSV report for review in a spreadsheet. Both include engine version, timestamp, score, confidence, metrics, findings, recommendations and limitations. Sensitive-data reports mask candidate values and no report includes the complete extracted document text.
Related tools and independent checks
Method or accuracy correction? Read the testing methodology and contact info@brothers.net.tr. Material scoring changes are published in the change log.