rubric

# Rubric > *"What gets measured gets managed."* Explicit criteria with weights translate qualitative debate into defensible scores. ## Rubric Structure ```yaml 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" 2: "Elevated risk, needs mitigation" 1: "High risk, major red flags" strategic_alignment: weight: 0.25 scale: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] description: "Does this advance our strategic goals?" anchors: 5: "Core to our strategy" 4: "Strongly aligned" 3: "Compatible" 2: "Tangential" 1: "Misaligned" stakeholder_impact: weight: 0.25 scale: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] description: "How does this affect our stakeholders?" anchors: 5: "Benefits all stakeholders" 4: "Benefits most, neutral for others" 3: "Mixed impact" 2: "Some stakeholders harmed" 1: "Significant negative impact" thresholds: accept: 3.5 reject: 2.0 review: [2.0, 3.5] # Between reject and accept ``` ## Scoring ```yaml 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. ``` ## Calculation ``` 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 ``` ## Rubric Evolution Rubrics improve over time: ```yaml 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" ``` ## Domain-Specific Rubrics ```yaml # 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 } ``` ## Commands | 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 | ## Integration ```mermaid 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 ```