Skip to content
Back to skills

Rubric Simhacker Moollm 2

ASecurity

Measurable criteria translating qualitative debate to quantitative scores

  • 666 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 2, 2026
ai-agentsgocode-reviewperformance

Works with

  • cli

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 2, 2026

npx -y skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill rubric-simhacker-moollm-2 --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Rubric Simhacker Moollm 2?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Rubric Simhacker Moollm 2
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/majiayu000-rubric-simhacker-moollm-2/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/majiayu000-rubric-simhacker-moollm-2)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
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
---

# 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
```

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.