omh-award-bar-score

---
name: "omh-award-bar-score"
description: "[omh] Aiming for design-award quality: score a web surface against published design-award judging axes and name the binding constraint. Use when the user says: award-bar-score, award bar score, award winning, award-winning, award winning website, award-winning website, award winning design, award ready."
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, materials]
    category: materials
    phase: award-bar-score
    role: operator
    quality_tier: design-orchestration-gated
---

# Award Bar Score

This is a Hermes-native `award-bar-score` workflow skill.

## Why This Exists

`award-bar-score` gives "make it award-winning" a measurable meaning: published axes, published weights, a published threshold, and the one axis holding the surface below it — instead of a taste argument nobody can settle.

## Do Not Use When

- The request is broad premium quality across decks, PDFs, or posters; use `design-quality-gate`.
- The request is frontend implementation, layout, or design-system work; use `frontend`.
- The request is WCAG, keyboard, or screen-reader conformance; use `accessibility-audit`.
- The request is a rendered capture or a pixel verdict; use `visual-qa`.
- The award is a business, sales, or team award with no judged web surface.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: score our landing page against the css design awards bar and tell me what is holding it back
- Expected behavior: Prepare award_bar_score/v1 with per-axis UI/UX/innovation scores from rendered evidence, the weighted total against the 8.0 threshold, the binding constraint, and the accessibility/performance tradeoff ledger.
- Why: The request asks for a measured comparison against a published external bar, not a general polish pass.

Bad example:

- Prompt: award-bar-score confirm this site will win website of the day
- Expected behavior: Score the axes against the published model and refuse the outcome claim; a jury scores submissions and OMH does not.
- Why: A rubric self-assessment cannot predict a jury result.

## Completion Checklist

- Each of UI, UX, and innovation carries its own score and the rendered evidence it was read from.
- The weighted total is computed from the stated weights and compared against the published threshold.
- The binding constraint names one axis and what moving it requires.
- Any innovation move that costs accessibility or performance budget is recorded as a tradeoff the user chooses.
- No award, jury, placement, or selection outcome is claimed.

## Recovery Notes

- If no rendered evidence exists, keep every axis not_observed and route the capture to visual-qa before scoring.
- If the award body publishes no weights, score the axes separately and report the total as unweighted rather than inventing a ratio.

## Workflow Lane

- Current lane: **Materials and visual summaries** (`design-orchestration`, `apple-design`, `design-quality-gate`, `award-bar-score`, `frontend`, `accessibility-audit`, `visual-qa`, `content-operator`, `+6 more`) - web, accessibility, visual QA, files, and packages.
- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to `oh-my-hermes` or name the adjacent workflow.
- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`.

## Use When

Use when a web surface must be judged against an external award bar: per-axis scores for UI, UX, and innovation, the weighted total against the published threshold, and the one axis holding the score down.

    Strong routing signals: `award-bar-score`, `award bar score`, `award winning`, `award-winning`, `award winning website`, `award-winning website`, `award winning design`, `award ready`, `make it award winning`, `design award`, `design awards`, `css design awards`, `cssda`, `awwwards`, `site of the day`, `website of the day`, `wotd`, `score my site`, `어워드`, `디자인 어워드`, `어워드 수준`, `수상작 수준`, `수상 가능한 디자인`, `어워드 받을만한`, `올해의 사이트`

## Catalog Metadata

Category: `materials`
Phase: `award-bar-score`
Hermes role: `operator`
Quality tier: `design-orchestration-gated`
Reasoning demand: `standard`

Quality bar:

- Score each axis separately with named rendered evidence, then compute the weighted total; an overall impression is not a score and hides which axis is failing.
- Reserve binding-constraint language for a total within about 0.3 of the threshold. Measured axis spread is roughly a twentieth of site spread, so further below the bar a weak axis is a symptom: report that the site needs a level change, never a one-axis fix.
- Load `references/award-judging-model.md` for the published axes, weights, and thresholds, the measured per-axis score table, and the stack table that separates entry-fee craft (fluid type, real typography) from optional spend (WebGL).
- Record what an innovation move costs on the accessibility and performance budgets before recommending it; half the sampled motion-heavy winners drop `prefers-reduced-motion`, and the two highest-scoring entries keep it, so never present the inaccessible path as the higher-scoring one.

Handoff policy:

Keep axis scoring, the weighted total, the binding-constraint call, and the tradeoff ledger in Hermes. Route implementation to frontend, WCAG evidence to accessibility-audit, and rendered captures to visual-qa; never score an axis from a description of a page instead of the page.

Required inputs:

- the target URL, route, or rendered capture being judged
- the award model and its published axes, weights, and threshold
- the surface's own accessibility and performance budgets
- audience and primary user task

Expected outputs:

- award_bar_score/v1
- per-axis scores with named evidence for UI, UX, and innovation
- the weighted total and its distance from the published threshold
- the binding constraint: the axis whose gain moves the total most
- tradeoff_ledger/v1 when an innovation move costs accessibility or performance budget
- downstream route: frontend, accessibility-audit, visual-qa, or design-quality-gate

Artifact expectations:

- award_bar_score/v1 with prepared_not_observed status
- every axis score cites the rendered evidence it was read from, or stays not_observed
- the weighted total is arithmetic over the stated weights, never an impression
- no claim that a submission would win, place, or be selected

Safety rules:

- A self-assessment against a published rubric is never an award, a jury outcome, or a prediction of one; juries score submissions, and OMH does not.
- Never score an axis without rendered evidence; an unrendered page keeps every axis not_observed.
- Quote axis weights and thresholds only from the award body's published rules, and name the body and the date they were read.
- Accessibility and performance budgets outrank the innovation axis; when a move breaks one, record the tradeoff and let the user choose rather than defaulting to the score.
- Do not call a browser, network service, screenshot tool, or executor from OMH core.

## Runtime Evidence

Record observed delegation results; otherwise return `not_available` or `not_observed`.
Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
Reply in the user's own words and the host's own voice: OMH's record terms (surface, lane, wrapper, handoff, evidence boundary, not_observed) stay in records and tool calls, never in the sentence the user reads unless they ask about one; and when a stop condition or a decision the user owns ends the turn, offer the next action as a question rather than declaring what will not be done.

Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.

Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.