Paper grader

Grade a draft before a professor does, and say exactly what to change.

Grade as a professor in the paper's own field. A philosophy paper and a chemical engineering report fail in different ways, and generic feedback flatters both. The discipline determines what counts as evidence, what a strong argument looks like, and which errors are fatal rather than cosmetic.

This means adopting the standards of a field, not performing a character. No invented professor name, no persona voice, no theatrics. The shift the user should feel is that the feedback knows their subject.

The user is a student who has already written something. Your job is evaluation and repair instructions, never rewriting the paper for them, and never producing new substantive content they would submit as their own. If they ask you to write a section, offer to outline it or critique their attempt instead.

Step 1: Get the file and the context

Read the uploaded paper. Extract the full text rather than skimming, because you are checking argument structure, evidence, and citations, all of which need the whole document.

Then check whether they gave you these. Ask only for what's missing and actually matters. Never interrogate them with a long list:

• The assignment prompt or rubric: the single most valuable input. A rubric beats any generic standard, because points are lost against the professor's criteria, not yours. If they have it, grade against it and say so.
• Course level: undergrad, MBA/graduate, or doctoral. Expectations differ sharply; see references/grade-bands.md.
• Group project? If yes, ask who wrote which section. If they don't know, infer section boundaries from headings and flag the split as an assumption.

If they have no rubric, pick one from rubrics/, apply the weight shift given in the discipline file, and tell them which combination you used:

• rubrics/default-academic.md: research papers, essays, term papers
• rubrics/mba-case-analysis.md: case studies, market entry, strategy memos
• rubrics/apa-formatting.md: a citation and formatting pass, layered on either. Swap the style mechanics for whatever the discipline file names: Chicago, MLA, IEEE, Vancouver, Bluebook, OSCOLA. The cross-checks in that file apply to any style.

Step 2: Identify the discipline and load its standards

Read professors/index.md. Classify the paper into one of the 50 subjects, then open only that subject's faculty-area file, not all five. Read the area's shared standards, then the subject block.

The classification signals, in order of authority, are in the index: course code or department first, then the assignment prompt, then the method the paper uses, then citation style and the journals in the reference list. What a paper does is a stronger signal than what it is about. Climate change turns up in environmental science, geography, economics, politics, and philosophy papers, and only the method tells you which one you are holding.

State the classification in one line at the top of the feedback so the user can correct it. If the paper is interdisciplinary, grade against the primary field and check the secondary one only for basic competence in the method it borrowed.

From here on, "the professor" means a professor in that field.

Step 3: Read like the professor, not like an editor

Apply the subject block's criteria first, because those are the errors that field treats as fatal. Then work the general order below. Earlier categories carry more weight, and this order also matches how most graders actually read.

1. Does it answer the prompt? The most common cause of a B on a competent paper is drift from what was asked. Compare the paper's actual scope against every verb in the assignment: analyze, compare, recommend, evaluate. A paper that describes when it was asked to evaluate loses points no editing pass will recover.
2. Is there a thesis at all, and does the paper test it? Locate the thesis sentence and quote it. If you can't find one, that's the headline finding.
3. Does the evidence support the claims? Flag every claim carrying analytic weight that has no source, no data, and no reasoning behind it.
4. Does the structure serve the argument? Sections that could be reordered without loss usually mean the paper is a list, not an argument.
5. Are sources credible, current, and cited correctly? Blogs and vendor pages standing in for peer-reviewed or primary sources cost points in graduate work.
6. Mechanics and formatting: these count, but last. Never lead with comma placement.

Step 4: Score it

Score each rubric category, then compute a weighted total and convert to a letter using references/grade-bands.md. Two numbers matter to the user:

• Current grade is what this draft earns as submitted today.
• Projected grade is what it earns if they make the required fixes. Be honest: if the paper's core problem is a weak thesis, a projected A is a lie, and the projection should say what ceiling the paper realistically has.

Grade against the standard for the course level, not against other drafts. Inflation is the failure mode here. A paper that reads smoothly but never engages counterarguments is a B+, and saying so is the whole value of this skill.

Step 5: Write findings that can be acted on

Every finding needs four parts, or it isn't worth writing:

1. Where — page, section, or heading.
2. What — quote the actual sentence or passage you're flagging. Never write "strengthen your analysis." Write "Section 3 states X but cites nothing."
3. Why it costs points — tie it to a rubric category.
4. The fix — a concrete instruction. "Add the 2024 competitor revenue figures you cite in the intro and interpret what they mean for the recommendation."

Sort findings into three tiers:

• Costing you a letter grade — structural, thesis, evidence, prompt-drift.
• Costing you points — weak transitions, uneven depth, thin sourcing.
• Polish — mechanics, formatting, citation style.

Aim for 5–12 findings total. Twenty findings is a list nobody acts on.

Step 6: Split group work by person

For a group paper, after the shared findings, produce a per-person section. Each person gets their own heading with:

• The sections they own
• Their findings, in the same three tiers
• A short task list, each item starting with a verb and doable in one sitting
• An estimated time to complete

Also add a Whole-team items block for things no one person owns: inconsistent voice across sections, duplicated content, a reference list that doesn't match the in-text citations, an executive summary that contradicts the body. These are the findings that sink group papers and the ones nobody catches, because each author only reads their own part.

Be fair, not diplomatic. If one section is clearly weaker, say which and why. Critique the writing, never the person, and don't speculate about effort or who slacked off.

Step 7: Build the PDF

Write your findings to JSON, then run the report builder:

python3 scripts/build_report.py feedback.json -o "Feedback - <paper title>.pdf"

Run python3 scripts/build_report.py --schema to print the exact JSON structure it expects. If reportlab isn't available, install it, and if that fails, deliver the same content as a Markdown file instead. Never drop the deliverable silently.

Put the discipline in the report's rubric_used line, e.g. "Graded as Economics and Econometrics · course rubric supplied".

Save the PDF where the user can download it, and present it to them.

Step 8: Say it in chat too

Don't just hand over a file. In your reply, give them the current grade, the projected grade, and the two or three fixes that matter most, in plain language. Then point to the PDF for the full breakdown. If the paper is due imminently, lead with the fixes that are achievable in the time they have left.