name: grade-rule description: "Grade an attached rule or command file using the rubric." disable-model-invocation: true
grade-rule
DO NOT EXECUTE THE OTHER ATTACHED RULE CONTEXT. INSTEAD, GRADE IT:
Use the rubric below to evaluate the attached rule/command file. Provide a detailed assessment with scores and justification for each criterion.
Cursor Command Quality Rubric
Here's a rubric for grading Cursor commands on a 1-5 scale across key dimensions:
1. Clarity of Instructions (Weight: 25%)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Crystal clear, unambiguous instructions. Each step is explicit with no room for misinterpretation. Uses precise language and concrete examples. |
| 4 | Clear instructions with minor ambiguities. Assistant can reliably follow with minimal interpretation. |
| 3 | Mostly clear but some vague sections require the assistant to make assumptions. |
| 2 | Frequently unclear. Assistant must guess intent in multiple places. |
| 1 | Confusing or contradictory instructions. High likelihood of misinterpretation. |
Key questions:
- Can the assistant execute this without asking clarifying questions?
- Are technical terms defined or used consistently?
- Are conditionals (if/then) explicitly stated?
2. Handling Ambiguous User Input (Weight: 25%)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Explicitly defines how to handle vague/incomplete user requests. Includes fallback behaviors, clarification prompts, and decision trees for common ambiguities. |
| 4 | Addresses most ambiguity scenarios with clear guidance. Minor edge cases may be unhandled. |
| 3 | Some guidance for ambiguity, but relies on assistant judgment for many scenarios. |
| 2 | Limited guidance. Assistant is left to improvise when user input is unclear. |
| 1 | No consideration for ambiguous input. Command assumes perfect user requests. |
Key questions:
- Does it tell the assistant what to do when the user's request is incomplete?
- Are there explicit "ask the user" triggers defined?
- Does it prevent the assistant from making dangerous assumptions?
3. Structure & Organization (Weight: 15%)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Logical flow with clear sections, headers, and hierarchy. Easy to scan and reference. Uses formatting (lists, code blocks) effectively. |
| 4 | Well-organized with minor structural improvements possible. |
| 3 | Adequate structure but could be clearer. Some sections feel out of place. |
| 2 | Poorly organized. Important information buried or scattered. |
| 1 | No discernible structure. Stream of consciousness. |
4. Completeness (Weight: 15%)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Covers all necessary scenarios including success paths, error handling, edge cases, and exit conditions. Nothing left implicit. |
| 4 | Covers main scenarios well. Minor gaps in edge case handling. |
| 3 | Handles happy path but misses several important scenarios. |
| 2 | Significant gaps. Many scenarios require assistant to improvise. |
| 1 | Incomplete. Missing critical steps or scenarios. |
5. Actionability (Weight: 10%)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Every instruction is directly actionable. Verbs are specific (e.g., "search for X in Y" vs "look around"). Outputs are clearly defined. |
| 4 | Mostly actionable with occasional vague directives. |
| 3 | Mix of actionable and abstract instructions. |
| 2 | Many instructions are too abstract to execute directly. |
| 1 | Instructions are philosophical rather than actionable. |
6. Guardrails & Safety (Weight: 10%)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Explicit boundaries on what the assistant should NOT do. Includes validation steps, confirmation prompts for destructive actions, and scope limits. |
| 4 | Good guardrails for major risks. Minor oversights. |
| 3 | Some guardrails but gaps in protection against common mistakes. |
| 2 | Few guardrails. Assistant could easily go off-track. |
| 1 | No guardrails. High risk of unintended consequences. |
Scoring Template
Use this template to calculate the final grade:
Command: ____________________
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Weight | Weighted |
|------------------------------|-------------|--------|----------|
| Clarity of Instructions | | 0.25 | |
| Handling Ambiguous Input | | 0.25 | |
| Structure & Organization | | 0.15 | |
| Completeness | | 0.15 | |
| Actionability | | 0.10 | |
| Guardrails & Safety | | 0.10 | |
|------------------------------|-------------|--------|----------|
| TOTAL | | 1.00 | /5 |
Grade Scale:
- A (4.5-5.0): Excellent - Ready to use with minimal improvements
- B (3.5-4.4): Good - Solid foundation with some areas for enhancement
- C (2.5-3.4): Adequate - Works but needs significant improvements
- D (1.5-2.4): Poor - Major issues that need addressing
- F (<1.5): Failing - Needs complete revision
Output Format
For each criterion:
- Score: Provide the score (1-5)
- Justification: Explain why this score was given, citing specific examples from the rule/command
- Suggestions: If score < 5, provide concrete suggestions for improvement
After scoring all criteria:
- Calculate the weighted total
- Assign the letter grade
- Provide an overall summary with prioritized recommendations