6.8 KiB
Scoring Rubric
Score transformed text on 8 criteria (1-5 scale each). Minimum passing: 32/40 (80%).
1. Directness (1-5)
Does the text get to the point without hedging or softening?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Opens with main point. No qualifiers, no throat-clearing. Every sentence advances the argument. |
| 4 | Minimal hedging. One or two soft qualifiers. Gets to point within first sentence. |
| 3 | Some unnecessary setup. A few hedging phrases. Main point clear but delayed. |
| 2 | Multiple hedges per paragraph. Excessive qualifiers. Main point buried. |
| 1 | Constant hedging. Throat-clearing openers. Reader must hunt for the point. |
Red flags: "It's worth noting," "To be fair," "I think," "Perhaps," "Maybe," "Kind of," "Sort of"
2. Natural Rhythm (1-5)
Does sentence length vary naturally? Does it read like speech, not template?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Sentence lengths vary 8-25 words naturally. Mix of structures. No mechanical patterns. |
| 4 | Good variance. One or two repetitive structures. Flows well overall. |
| 3 | Some variance but noticeable patterns. Occasional monotony. |
| 2 | Most sentences similar length. Obvious templated rhythm. |
| 1 | Robotic uniformity. Every sentence same structure. Machine-generated feel. |
Test: Read aloud. Does it sound like a person talking?
3. Concrete Verbs (1-5)
Are verbs specific and active, or abstract and passive?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | All verbs concrete and specific. Actions you can visualize. No abstract placeholders. |
| 4 | Mostly concrete verbs. One or two abstract (leverage, utilize). |
| 3 | Mix of concrete and abstract. Some passive voice. |
| 2 | Dominated by abstract verbs. Heavy passive voice. |
| 1 | Almost entirely abstract verbs. "Utilize," "leverage," "navigate" throughout. |
Red flags: leverage, utilize, facilitate, implement, optimize, navigate, unpack, foster
Good verbs: build, cut, fix, send, write, call, test, ship, break
4. Reader Trust (1-5)
Does the text trust the reader, or over-explain and patronize?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Assumes reader competence. No stating the obvious. Respects intelligence. |
| 4 | Mostly trusting. One instance of over-explanation. |
| 3 | Some hand-holding. Occasional obvious statements. |
| 2 | Frequent over-explanation. Multiple obvious statements. |
| 1 | Constant patronizing. "Think about it," "Let that sink in," "In other words." |
Red flags: "Think about it," "Let that sink in," "In other words," "To put it simply," "As you know"
5. Human Authenticity (1-5)
Does the text sound like a person wrote it, or an AI performing humanity? This criterion evaluates both the absence of AI patterns and the presence of human voice.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Could have been written by a specific person. Has voice, opinion, and lived experience. Rhythm varies naturally. Reader can sense the author's personality. |
| 4 | Sounds human. Clear perspective. Minor generic patches. Mostly specific with occasional abstraction. |
| 3 | Clean but anonymous. No glaring AI tells, but no personality either. Could be anyone. Reads as competent but soulless. |
| 2 | Generic tone. Multiple AI patterns. Corporate-neutral. Hedges everything. No first person, no specificity, no stance. |
| 1 | Obvious AI. Performative emphasis, binary contrasts, dramatic fragmentation. Significance inflation, promotional language, chatbot artifacts. |
Red flags (AI tells): "Full stop." "Period." "Let me be clear." Stacked short sentences for effect. Rhetorical questions answered immediately. Significance inflation ("stands as a testament"). Promotional language ("nestled", "boasts"). Superficial -ing analyses. Vague attributions ("experts argue"). Copula avoidance ("serves as a"). Communication artifacts ("I hope this helps").
Red flags (soulless): No opinions stated. No first person. Every claim hedged. Uniform sentence rhythm. No specific names, numbers, or dates. Balanced-to-a-fault framing. Sanitized vocabulary only. See references/personality-guide.md for detailed guidance.
6. Content Density (1-5)
What's the ratio of substance to filler?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Every word necessary. No filler. Dense with information or insight. |
| 4 | Minimal filler. One or two unnecessary phrases. Tight overall. |
| 3 | Some padding. A few filler phrases. Content present but diluted. |
| 2 | Significant padding. Multiple filler phrases per paragraph. |
| 1 | More filler than content. Adverb-heavy. "In today's landscape" type phrases throughout. |
Filler indicators: "At its core," "In today's [X]," "When it comes to," "At the end of the day," "Moving forward"
7. Fact Preservation (1-5)
Are all factual elements from the original intact?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | All facts preserved exactly. Numbers, names, dates, URLs unchanged. |
| 4 | All facts preserved. Minor rephrasing of non-critical details. |
| 3 | Most facts preserved. One minor fact altered. |
| 2 | Some facts missing or changed. |
| 1 | Significant fact loss or alteration. |
Must preserve: Numbers, percentages, dates, proper nouns, URLs, quotes, technical terms, citations
8. Template Avoidance (1-5)
Is the structure organic, or following AI templates?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Unique structure. No recognizable AI patterns. Organic flow. |
| 4 | Mostly organic. One minor template echo. |
| 3 | Some template patterns. Binary contrasts or lists visible. |
| 2 | Multiple template patterns. Predictable structure. |
| 1 | Full AI template. Three-item lists, binary contrasts, dramatic fragments throughout. |
Template patterns:
- "Not X. Y." binary contrasts
- "X. That's it. That's the [thing]." fragments
- "Think about it:" setups
- Exactly three items in every list
- Every paragraph ending with punch
Scoring Guide
| Total | Assessment |
|---|---|
| 40 | Perfect—indistinguishable from skilled human writer |
| 36-39 | Excellent—occasional minor tells |
| 32-35 | Passing—clearly human, some AI influence |
| 28-31 | Needs work—AI patterns visible |
| 24-27 | Significant issues—AI-forward |
| <24 | Fail—reads as AI-generated |
Minimum passing score: 32/40 (80%)
Quick Scoring Checklist
□ Directness: Opens with point? No hedging? [ /5]
□ Rhythm: Sentence lengths vary 8-25 words? [ /5]
□ Verbs: Concrete, active, specific? [ /5]
□ Trust: No over-explaining? Respects reader? [ /5]
□ Authenticity: Sounds like a person? [ /5]
□ Density: Substance over filler? [ /5]
□ Facts: All facts preserved exactly? [ /5]
□ Structure: No AI templates? [ /5]
TOTAL: [ /40]