# Grader Guidance (Consolidated Standard) — <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.

Your job in this file is 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-grader-guidance-consolidated`
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 as a subtraction from the score the response would otherwise earn,
with a rough magnitude as a 0.0-1.0 fraction and a single named criterion
target — e.g. "subtract roughly 0.35 from **Verification & Thoroughness**" —
never points, never a cap or pinned score. Always state the behavior that does
NOT trip the penalty. Never describe how criteria combine into an overall
score.>