Menu
Measurable criteria translating qualitative debate to quantitative scores
The review-first prompt is selected by default. You can switch to a direct command or download a local copy.
Read SKILL.md and any companion files shown by SkillsMP before deciding whether to install.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
npx skills add https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm --skill rubricThe command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Showing SKILL.md
| name | rubric |
| description | Measurable criteria translating qualitative debate to quantitative scores |
| allowed-tools | ["read_file","write_file"] |
| tier | 1 |
| protocol | RUBRIC |
| tags | ["moollm","scoring","criteria","evaluation","decision"] |
| credits | Mike Gallaher — RUBRIC-bridge methodology |
| related | ["adversarial-committee","evaluator","scoring","advertisement"] |
| templates | [{"file":"RUBRIC.yml.tmpl","purpose":"Scoring rubric definition"}] |
"What gets measured gets managed."
Explicit criteria with weights translate qualitative debate into defensible scores.
rubric:
id: client-evaluation-v1
name: "Client Engagement Rubric"
version: 1.0
criteria:
resource_efficiency:
weight: 0.20
scale: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
description: "How well does this fit our current capacity?"
anchors:
5: "Perfect fit, no adjustments needed"
4: "Good fit, minor adjustments"
3: "Manageable, some reallocation"
2: "Difficult, significant changes"
1: "Would overwhelm current capacity"
risk_level:
weight: 0.30
scale: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
description: "What's the risk profile?"
anchors:
5: "Minimal risk, strong track record"
4: "Low risk, minor concerns"
3: "Moderate risk, manageable"
[, , , , ]
[, , , , ]
[, ]
evaluation:
rubric: client-evaluation-v1
subject: "Client X Engagement"
evaluator: independent # No debate context
scores:
resource_efficiency:
score: 4
rationale: "Good capacity fit, minor timeline adjustment"
risk_level:
score: 2
rationale: "Scope creep history is concerning"
strategic_alignment:
score: 4
rationale: "Aligns with growth goals"
stakeholder_impact:
score: 3
rationale: "Positive for team growth, stress for some"
weighted_total: 3.15 # Below accept threshold
recommendation: review
critique: |
Risk score of 2 dragging down overall.
If risk can be mitigated (milestone billing, scope boundaries),
score could reach 3.55 (accept).
Suggestion: Revise proposal with explicit risk mitigation.
weighted_total = Σ (criterion_weight × criterion_score)
Example:
resource_efficiency: 0.20 × 4 = 0.80
risk_level: 0.30 × 2 = 0.60
strategic_alignment: 0.25 × 4 = 1.00
stakeholder_impact: 0.25 × 3 = 0.75
total = 0.80 + 0.60 + 1.00 + 0.75 = 3.15
Rubrics improve over time:
rubric_history:
- version: 1.0
date: "2025-06-01"
note: "Initial version"
- version: 1.1
date: "2025-09-15"
changes:
- "Added 'stakeholder_impact' criterion"
- "Reweighted risk from 0.35 to 0.30"
reason: "Post-mortem showed we missed stakeholder effects"
- version: 1.2
date: "2026-01-05"
changes:
- "Refined risk anchors for scope creep"
reason: "Client X evaluation revealed gap"
# rubrics/code-review-rubric.yml
rubric:
id: code-review-v1
criteria:
correctness: { weight: 0.30 }
readability: { weight: 0.20 }
maintainability: { weight: 0.20 }
performance: { weight: 0.15 }
test_coverage: { weight: 0.15 }
# rubrics/hiring-rubric.yml
rubric:
id: hiring-v1
criteria:
technical_skills: { weight: 0.30 }
collaboration: { weight: 0.25 }
growth_potential: { weight: 0.20 }
culture_add: { weight: 0.15 }
communication: { weight: 0.10 }
| Command | Action |
|---|---|
DEFINE RUBRIC [name] | Create new rubric |
SCORE [subject] AGAINST [rubric] | Evaluate against criteria |
COMPARE [a] [b] USING [rubric] | Side-by-side evaluation |
REVISE RUBRIC [changes] | Update rubric version |
graph LR
C[Committee Debate] --> O[Output]
O -->|THROW| E[Evaluator]
R[RUBRIC.yml] --> E
E --> S{Score}
S -->|≥ 3.5| A[Accept]
S -->|≤ 2.0| X[Reject]
S -->|between| REV[Review]
REV -->|critique| C