eric/project-work
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

lots of change - all to start my 3rd redo

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Eric Bell
2026-09-26 14:31:52 -04:00
parent 7f4d388e19
commit bceb52e8ee
1046 changed files with 4476 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

60
worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/.claude/skills/detector-good-response-defined/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
---
name: detector-good-response-defined
description: |
Self-check whether your holistic rubric makes it easy for the grader to tell
what a strong response looks like — a positive success target ("what a good response
says," an answer key of the findings a top answer surfaces, a worked example, or tiers
that enumerate concrete positive content) — or whether it only catalogs problems
(failure scenarios, "what a bad response says," deductions, heavy penalties), leaving the
grader to infer "good" from the absence of listed problems. Multiple acceptable "good"
shapes are fine and are never penalized. Reads the holistic rubric file that
`bash scripts/guidance-target.sh <slug>` resolves (instruction.md for
context).
allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
---
# Good-response-defined detector
This skill checks whether your holistic rubric gives the grader a **positive
picture of success** — what a strong response actually says, contains, or
does — or whether it only lists the ways a response can go wrong.
A grader needs to recognize a strong answer on its own terms. If your rubric
is all "concrete failure scenario," "what a bad response says," deductions,
and heavy penalties, the grader can only score by *absence of listed problems* —
which over-credits a hollow answer that happens to dodge every trap, and
under-serves a genuinely strong answer that does something you didn't
anticipate. The fix is to state, affirmatively, what a good answer
establishes — per issue or overall.
**Multiple "good" options are fine — encouraged.** "A strong response either
defends the current design with sound reasoning, or proposes a migration
with explicit tradeoffs — both acceptable" *defines good* perfectly well.
The skill never penalizes you for allowing several strong shapes; it only
flags never describing any.
The canonical format already asks for this. The rubric structure
(`/write-holistic-rubric`) carries the positive target in its Ground truth
and per-criterion sections. Keeping the failure half but dropping the good
half is the `problems-only` shape this catches.
Read these before deciding:
1. `.claude/skills/_detector-worker-shell.md` — where to write the report and how to handle re-runs.
2. `.claude/skills/detector-good-response-defined/core.md` — what counts as defining good vs. problems-only, why multiple "good" options are fine, the boundary against detector-rubric-clarity, verdict enums.
Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.
## Acting on the verdict
- **`defines-good`** — your rubric gives the grader a clear positive target
(one shape or several). Good. Move on.
- **`partial`** — you've defined good for part of the task but the central
thing it tests is left as failure scenarios. Add a "what a good response
says" / answer-key treatment for the load-bearing issue, then re-run.
- **`problems-only`** — your rubric is a catalog of problems with no
affirmative success target. For each issue, add what a strong response
establishes (it's fine to list more than one acceptable shape), or add an
answer key of the findings a top answer surfaces, so the grader can
recognize "good" directly. Re-run after.
- **`not-applicable`** — no holistic rubric to assess yet. Draft it first.