---
name: detector-dimension-misapplication
description: |
  Self-check whether your holistic rubric routes graded failures
  to the wrong rating axis — across the eight criteria of the Grading
  Standard (Integrity, Narrow Correctness, Broader Correctness / craft,
  Persistence, Communication, Verification & Thoroughness, Common Sense,
  Thought Partnership). The most common mistake: charging **Integrity**
  for an overconfident claim the agent never saw contradicted — a false
  claim is an Integrity issue only when it contradicts something the
  agent inspected, observed, or authored; otherwise it's a Verification &
  Thoroughness failure. Also catches disclosed omissions penalized as
  lies of omission, made-up criterion names, criterion labels that don't
  match the graded substance, and one failure charged twice in a shape
  the shared grading arithmetic doesn't define (a heavy penalty naming
  both a criterion and the overall score is the sanctioned pattern, not
  double-charging).
allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
---

# Dimension-misapplication detector

This skill checks your holistic rubric (the file
`bash scripts/guidance-target.sh <slug>` resolves) for whether it routes
each graded behavior to the right rating axis. A rubric can describe a
completely real failure and still misgrade it by charging it to a criterion
that measures something else — Integrity for a claim the agent was merely
confidently wrong about rather than misrepresenting, or a correctness
criterion for a judgment failure that Thought Partnership owns.

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-dimension-misapplication/core.md` — the project's routing rules and classifiers, the misapplication shapes, what a correctly-routed rubric looks like, the grade-drift checks, verdict enums.

Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.

## Acting on the verdict

- **`clean`** — every behavior→criterion binding in your rubric matches the
  project's routing rules. Good.
- **`partial-misapplication`** — a binding is defensible but imprecise:
  a criterion billed as a secondary consideration for a behavior it
  doesn't own, an Integrity conditioning clause that is too loose to
  apply reliably, a criterion label that doesn't match the graded
  substance, or your reference-run grades scored a criterion in a way your
  rubric doesn't support (docking a criterion the rubric never grades, or
  drifting past your N/A instruction), or one failure double-charged beyond
  the defined aggregation — the same trigger charged through two
  separately-stated penalties that can both fire on one defect, or one
  magnitude applied more than once. (A heavy penalty naming both a
  criterion and the overall score is the sanctioned pattern, not
  double-charging — never flag it.) Look at the rationale in the report;
  tighten the conditioning, fix the label, or make the intended treatment
  binding and prominent.
- **`clear-misapplication`** — a load-bearing clause charges a failure to a
  criterion that unambiguously belongs to another one (e.g. a Verification
  & Thoroughness failure scored as Integrity, or a missing pushback
  charged to Narrow Correctness when judgment about the request is
  Thought Partnership's). The fix is usually to re-attribute the failure
  to the correct criterion section and heavy penalties. Re-run this skill
  after.
- **`not-applicable`** — the rubric is missing/empty, or never routes
  failures to specific criteria at all, and the reference-run grades
  didn't materially score a criterion either. Nothing to misapply. (Don't
  add criterion bindings just to chase a different verdict — bind a
  criterion only when it genuinely owns a behavior the task grades.)