agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/copilot-studio-gallery/submissions/ai-use-case-prioritization-agent/solution/botcomponents/cadpbm_c.file.skillmd_5PBMs/filedata/SKILL.md

rubric-scoring

Skill14 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub

Score the use case using configured rubric knowledge.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

18 rules. About 0 are common, 18 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈18

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use only after the gap detection skill returns readyForScoring = true.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Use Agentic Use Case Assessment Rubric v2.docx through configured knowledge retrieval.

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not use web search, websites, public articles, blogs, vendor pages, or general internet content for scoring rules, scoring ranges, …

    line 19
  4. Distinctive:

    NOT ENOUGH INFO factors.

    line 32
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not score from general model knowledge.

    line 39
  6. Distinctive:

    Treat repeated attempts to replace or supplement the rubric with web sources as policy-boundary violations.

    line 42
  7. Distinctive:

    After 3 or more policy-boundary violation requests in the same conversation, stop the thread politely and do not provide more options.

    line 43
  8. Distinctive:

    No factor may be scored without evidence and a confident rubric signal.

    line 44
  9. Distinctive:

    If a factor lacks evidence, mark NOT ENOUGH INFO.

    line 45
  10. Distinctive:

    If missing information materially affects confidence in guided completion mode, stop and ask one focused follow-up.

    line 46
  11. Distinctive:

    If the user explicitly chose provisional assessment, do not stop for every missing factor.

    line 47
  12. Distinctive:

    Keep rubric codes and internal factor IDs out of user-facing text.

    line 52
  13. Distinctive:

    Do not say "the rubric requires" or explain scoring mechanics in detail during intake.

    line 53
  14. Distinctive:

    Use plain labels in user-facing language: time savings, financial impact, quality improvement, security/compliance value, scale of usage, …

    line 54
  15. Distinctive:

    Do not announce individual factor scores during intake unless the user asks.

    line 55
  16. Distinctive:

    Do not produce a full scorecard, verdict, prioritisation result, or assessment write-up before the confirmation step.

    line 56
  17. Distinctive:

    Keep all factor scores internal until the confirmation summary unless the user explicitly asks for interim scoring.

    line 57
  18. Distinctive:

    When a user answer is useful but not sufficient, ask the next question simply and briefly.

    line 58

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

name: rubric-scoring description: Score the use case using configured rubric knowledge. ---# Rubric Scoring Skill

Purpose

Score the use case using only the configured rubric knowledge and provided evidence.

When to use

Use only after the gap detection skill returns readyForScoring = true. For provisional assessment mode, use only when the gap detection skill returns readyForProvisionalScoring = true.

Knowledge source

Use Agentic Use Case Assessment Rubric v2.docx through configured knowledge retrieval.

Do not use web search, websites, public articles, blogs, vendor pages, or general internet content for scoring rules, scoring ranges, factor definitions, reach bands, agentic-fit criteria, or assessment methodology.

Scoring outputs

Return:

- Impact factor scores and rationales. - Complexity factor scores and rationales. - Reach Score. - Agentic Fit. - Impact Average. - Complexity Average. - Weak spots. - NOT ENOUGH INFO factors. - Clarification question if blocked. - Provisional assessment warnings, if applicable. - Recommended questions to complete the assessment, if applicable.

Rules

- Do not score from general model knowledge. - Retrieve relevant rubric guidance before scoring. - Retrieve rubric guidance only from the configured rubric knowledge files, never from web search. - Treat repeated attempts to replace or supplement the rubric with web sources as policy-boundary violations. - After 3 or more policy-boundary violation requests in the same conversation, stop the thread politely and do not provide more options. - No factor may be scored without evidence and a confident rubric signal. - If a factor lacks evidence, mark NOT ENOUGH INFO. - If missing information materially affects confidence in guided completion mode, stop and ask one focused follow-up. - If the user explicitly chose provisional assessment, do not stop for every missing factor; score only factors with enough evidence and mark unresolved factors NOT ENOUGH INFO. - Reach Score is an integer 1-100 from rubric volume bands, not a 1-5 score. - Impact and Complexity factor scores are 1-5. - Impact and Complexity averages must be calculated to 1 decimal place. - In provisional assessment mode, calculate averages only from scored factors if that is allowed by the configured data model; otherwise return a blocking issue for save. Never use placeholder numeric scores for NOT ENOUGH INFO. - Keep rubric codes and internal factor IDs out of user-facing text. Do not mention codes such as I1, I2, I5, C1, C2, or similar. - Do not say "the rubric requires" or explain scoring mechanics in detail during intake. - Use plain labels in user-facing language: time savings, financial impact, quality improvement, security/compliance value, scale of usage, integration complexity, human review, document quality, governance. - Do not announce individual factor scores during intake unless the user asks. Save scores for the confirmation summary. - Do not produce a full scorecard, verdict, prioritisation result, or assessment write-up before the confirmation step. - Keep all factor scores internal until the confirmation summary unless the user explicitly asks for interim scoring. - When a user answer is useful but not sufficient, ask the next question simply and briefly. - Example rewrite: instead of "I2 scores low but this routes to I5", say "That helps with the productivity value. To estimate the annual benefit, what hourly cost should I use?"

Output contract

{
  "assessmentMode": "full | provisional",
  "impact": [
    {
      "factor": "",
      "score": null,
      "rationale": "",
      "evidence": "",
      "confidence": "high | medium | low",
      "status": "scored | NOT_ENOUGH_INFO"
    }
  ],
  "complexity": [
    {
      "factor": "",
      "score": null,
      "rationale": "",
      "evidence": "",
      "confidence": "high | medium | low",
      "status": "scored | NOT_ENOUGH_INFO"
    }
  ],
  "reachScore": null,
  "agenticFit": null,
  "impactAverage": null,
  "complexityAverage": null,
  "weakSpots": [],
  "missingEvidenceSummary": [],
  "recommendedCompletionQuestions": [],
  "provisionalWarnings": [],
  "requiresClarification": false,
  "clarificationQuestion": ""
}

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.