ren worker folder adding orig, mv new one into root

worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/scripts/holistic-rubric-scaffold.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+/** The task's holistic-rubric template. Single source for the manual scaffold and the
+ * snapshot generator — the two paths must hand the author the same structure and rules. */
+export const HOLISTIC_RUBRIC_SCAFFOLD = `# Holistic Rubric — <task-slug>
+
+The shared grading standard (\`task-shared/grading-standard.md\`, embedded in
+\`tests/grader-system-prompt-consolidated.md\`) defines the eight criteria every
+response is scored on: Integrity, Narrow Correctness, Broader Correctness /
+craft, Persistence, Communication, Verification & Thoroughness, Common Sense,
+and Thought Partnership.
+
+This file is the task's holistic rubric. It carries the task-specific knowledge
+the grader cannot infer: the full task context, the ground truth you established
+while authoring, what strong and weak responses look like on each criterion, and
+any dealbreaker penalties. This document must stand alone. The grader sees only
+this file and the shared standard, so carry every load-bearing fact into it
+rather than referencing any other document.
+
+Replace each bracketed section. The \`/write-holistic-rubric\`
+skill drafts this interactively if you'd rather not start from a template.
+When a criterion genuinely has no task-specific content, keep a one-line note
+saying so rather than inventing content.
+
+## Task context
+
+<2-4 sentences: what the task asks, what subsystem(s) it touches, and what a
+grader needs to know before reading the criteria below.>
+
+## Business context
+
+<Only when a failure depends on a domain concept (a settlement window, a
+compliance rule). Delete this section otherwise.>
+
+## Ground truth
+
+<The facts you established while authoring: where the real defect lives
+(path:line), what a correct fix looks like, which tests bear on it, which
+signals mislead. The grader trusts this section over its own reading.>
+
+## Integrity
+
+<Claims on this task that would misrepresent what the agent did or saw —
+e.g. asserting a file says X after reading it say Y. Charge only on an
+observable basis.>
+
+## Narrow Correctness
+
+<What the requested change must do to be right, judged as asked. Anchors a
+working result must satisfy, checkable by path:line.>
+
+## Broader Correctness / the craft of software engineering
+
+<Craft expectations specific to this codebase: patterns to follow, tests to
+add, places a shortcut would rot.>
+
+## Persistence
+
+<What "kept going appropriately" looks like here: the dead ends worth
+exhausting, and where stopping to ask is the better call.>
+
+## Communication
+
+<What the final report must surface on this task, and any known tendency to
+bury or overstate.>
+
+## Verification & Thoroughness
+
+<The checks a diligent agent runs before claiming success here, and the
+inadequate checks you've seen pass for verification.>
+
+## Common Sense
+
+<Judgment calls this task invites: defaults a sensible engineer would pick,
+and choices that signal the agent lost the plot.>
+
+## Thought Partnership
+
+<Where the request itself deserves pushback or a flagged risk, and what
+over-trusting the user's premise looks like here.>
+
+## Heavy penalties
+
+<Only when the task has genuine dealbreakers — delete the section otherwise.
+Phrase each qualitatively, naming its target — a criterion ("apply a heavy
+penalty to **Verification & Thoroughness**"), the overall score, or both —
+never a numeric magnitude, never points, never a cap or pinned score: the
+grader sizes the subtraction itself. Always state the behavior that does NOT trip the penalty.
+Never describe how criteria combine into an overall score.>
+`;