Rubric
"What gets measured gets managed."
Explicit criteria with weights translate qualitative debate into defensible scores.
Rubric Structure
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
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:
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
# 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
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