self-scoring-loop

name	self-scoring-loop
description	Iteratively improve a non-code deliverable (spec, plan, document, design) by writing an explicit rubric, scoring the work 0-100 against it, rewriting the weakest parts, and repeating until the score plateaus. Use when a deliverable has a quality bar but no test suite — e.g. before handing over a spec, proposal, architecture doc, or report.

Self-Scoring Loop

Turn a single-shot draft into a converging loop: score the work against an explicit rubric, fix the weakest parts, and repeat until improvement stalls. Scoring and rewriting are different acts — critiquing the work before rewriting turns blind editing into directed search.

This is the quality loop for deliverables that have no test suite. For code, use the code-scoring-loop sibling skill — the same loop with the diff scored by the framework's specialist agents, run before (never instead of) the review gates (code-review-gatekeeper, peer-review-critic).

When to Apply

• A spec, plan, proposal, or document is "done" but has not been judged against anything.
• The /agentic-framework:spec command finishes a draft spec (self-score it before presenting it).
• A deliverable will be consumed by someone else (or another agent) and errors are expensive downstream.
• The user asks to "polish", "tighten", or "make this good" without concrete criteria.

The Loop

1. Write the rubric first — before judging. 5–7 criteria specific to this deliverable, each with a weight (weights sum to 100). Generic criteria produce generic scores; a spec's rubric should weigh things like testable acceptance criteria and explicit out-of-scope fence, not "clarity" alone. The rubric is fixed for the rest of the loop — do not move the goalposts between iterations.
2. Score 0–100 against the rubric, with a one-line justification per criterion. Score honestly: an inflated score ends the loop early and defeats it.
3. Name the 1–2 weakest criteria and exactly why they lost points.
4. Rewrite only the weak parts. Keep what scored well — a full rewrite discards verified quality and restarts convergence.
5. Rescore and decide:
   • Improvement < 3 points, or 3 iterations reached → stop. More loops past a plateau produce churn, not quality.
   • Otherwise → back to step 3.
6. Report the final version, the final score with per-criterion breakdown, and the score trajectory (e.g. 71 → 84 → 88) so the reader can see the loop worked.

Rules

• Rubric before judgment, always — scoring without a rubric is vibes.
• The rubric must be visible in the report; a hidden rubric is unfalsifiable.
• Never revise the rubric mid-loop to make a score look better.
• If the deliverable scores ≥ 90 on the first pass, say so and stop — the loop is for improvement, not ceremony.
• This loop is single-agent and advisory; it does not replace the framework's review gates for code — code takes the code-scoring-loop variant.