評分準則 · Rubric Builder｜手動建立 Skill
依次複製以下三欄內容，貼到 Gemini Skill 的對應欄位。

【名稱 / Name】
rubric-builder

【說明 / Description】
Builds grading rubrics - analytic, holistic, or single-point - with criteria traced to learning objectives, 3-5 performance levels, observable behavior in every cell, and defensible weighting. Use when someone asks "make a rubric for this essay", "how should I grade this project", "turn these objectives into scoring criteria", or "my rubric feels vague, fix it". Do NOT use for writing the quiz questions themselves - use quiz-generator instead; for rubrics that score job candidates in interviews, use screening-rubric-builder; for narrative comments on a specific student's work, use student-feedback-writer.

【指示 / Instructions】
# Rubric Builder

A rubric does two jobs: it tells students exactly what mastery looks like before they begin, and it gives teachers a consistent, defensible standard when scoring. The costly failure this skill prevents is the adjective ladder - "excellent / good / fair / poor" - which students cannot act on before submitting and teachers cannot defend when a grade is challenged.

## Operating procedure

### Step 1: Gather inputs

1. The assignment or task being assessed (required - the actual prompt, not a summary).
2. The learning objectives it assesses (required; if the user has none written, draft them first and label them as guesses for confirmation).
3. Grade or level, and the stakes (minor credit vs major grade - this drives format).
4. Point total, if the gradebook requires one (default: 100).
5. Whether a student-facing version is needed (default: offer one).

### Step 2: Derive criteria from objectives

List the objectives, then derive one criterion per objective or per cluster of tightly related objectives. Trace test: if a criterion cannot be traced to a stated objective, cut it. Practical ceiling: 3-6 criteria; beyond 6, scoring time balloons and criteria start overlapping. Mechanics/conventions may earn one criterion at most, and only if the objectives include communication quality.

### Step 3: Choose the format

- Analytic (each criterion scored separately): default for any graded assignment worth more than minor credit; the only format that produces diagnostic feedback per criterion.
- Holistic (single overall score): quick checks and short, low-stakes tasks only.
- Single-point (describes proficient only, with narrative space either side): efficient for iterative draft work where the goal is revision, not a grade.

### Step 4: Set the performance levels

3-5 levels; four is the standard: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Approaching Expectations, Does Not Yet Meet Expectations. Three levels work for simple tasks. Five is the ceiling - more levels create scoring drift between graders and are rarely worth the calibration effort. Label levels with descriptive language, not just numbers, so feedback is inherent in the score.

### Step 5: Write descriptors - proficient first, observable only

Write the Meets Expectations cell first for each criterion, then adjust up and down. Every cell must describe observable features of the work - what it contains, how it is structured, what is missing - never grader impressions. Banned words in cells: excellent, good, poor, adequate, some, few, needs improvement, appropriate. Cell test: could two graders who have never met apply this cell to the same paper and land on the same level? Adjacent levels must differ by a nameable feature, not an adverb ("cites two or more sources" vs "cites one source", not "cites well" vs "cites adequately").

### Step 6: Weight the criteria

Assign points or percentages reflecting each criterion's importance to the objectives - the central skill should carry the most weight (typically 30-40% of total), mechanics rarely more than 10-15%. Document the weighting rationale in one sentence so it can be shared with students and defended to stakeholders.

### Step 7: Calibrate before use

Score one strong, one middling, and one weak sample (real or imagined) against the rubric. Any cell that forced a judgment call gets rewritten before the rubric ships.

## Skeleton: analytic rubric

Copy and replace the [FILL] fields.

```
RUBRIC - [FILL: assignment] - [FILL: total points]
Assesses objectives: [FILL: list]
Weighting rationale: [FILL: one sentence]

| Criterion (weight)        | Exceeds (pts)          | Meets (pts)            | Approaching (pts)      | Not Yet (pts)          |
| [FILL: criterion 1] ([FILL]%) | [FILL: observable features beyond proficient] | [FILL: observable features of proficiency - write this cell FIRST] | [FILL: named gap vs Meets] | [FILL: what is absent] |
| [FILL: criterion 2] ([FILL]%) | [FILL]             | [FILL]                 | [FILL]                 | [FILL]                 |
| [FILL: criterion 3] ([FILL]%) | [FILL]             | [FILL]                 | [FILL]                 | [FILL]                 |
| TOTAL                     |                        |                        |                        | [FILL] pts             |
```

Example of a filled cell pair (essay, criterion "Use of evidence", Meets vs Approaching):
- Meets: "Every body paragraph includes at least one quoted or paraphrased source, cited, and followed by a sentence explaining how it supports the claim."
- Approaching: "Most body paragraphs include a source, but at least one quotation is dropped in without an explanation connecting it to the claim."

## Deliverable

Produce the rubric as a table - rows are criteria, columns are performance levels - with point values per cell, a total-points row, a header naming the assignment and the objectives assessed, and the one-sentence weighting rationale. Offer a student-facing plain-language version.

## Do NOT

- Do not write adjective ladders; "excellent vs good" ranks work without describing it, so students cannot self-assess and grades cannot be defended.
- Do not include a criterion untraceable to an objective; it grades something never taught.
- Do not exceed five levels; fine gradations feel rigorous but produce inter-grader drift.
- Do not let mechanics outweigh the target skill; a brilliant argument with comma errors should not score below a vacuous clean one.
- Do not use holistic format for major grades; a single number gives the student nothing to fix.

## Quality bar

- Every criterion traces to a stated objective; 3-6 criteria total.
- Every cell passes the two-grader test and names observable features.
- Adjacent levels differ by a nameable feature, not an adverb.
- Weights sum correctly and the heaviest weight sits on the central skill.
- The rubric was calibrated against at least three sample performances.

---
授權與來源（不需要貼進 Skill 欄位）

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2026 Alexander Ouellet

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

# 來源與授權

名稱：rubric-builder
來源：https://github.com/SkillMedev/skills/blob/97a13607d669157a4a16d5ba79b77f208319f7b9/skills/rubric-builder/SKILL.md
儲存庫：https://github.com/SkillMedev/skills
固定版本：97a13607d669157a4a16d5ba79b77f208319f7b9
授權：MIT（見同資料夾 LICENSE）
Copyright (c) 2026 Alexander Ouellet

SKILL.md 保留原作者英文內容，沒有翻譯或改寫。本站只補充這份來源記錄。
原資料夾只有 SKILL.md，沒有必需的腳本、外部服務或其他相依檔案。指示中提及其他 Skills 是不同任務的建議，不代表本下載包含那些 Skills。

本網站已核對檔案結構與原文一致性。可在網站分別複製名稱、說明與指示，在 Create manually 手動建立 Skill；也可選擇 Upload 匯入獨立 Skill ZIP，核對後按 Create。建立後須選用該 Skill，加入測試素材再驗證。

原文的教學比例與規則是作者的設計選擇，教師應按自己的學生、課程及實際測試調整。
