NLPM Quality Scoring Rubric

100-point quality scale for all NL programming artifacts. Apply penalties deterministically. Use calibration examples to anchor judgment on borderline cases.

---

Scoring Formula

base_score = 100
adjustments = sum of all applicable penalties (all penalties are negative)
final_score = max(0, min(100, base_score + adjustments))

Penalties stack. The floor is 0; the ceiling is 100. No bonuses — the default assumption is that an artifact is well-formed, and quality is measured by what is missing or wrong.

---

Penalty Tables

Skills

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
--	name present	Missing	-25
R04	description present	Missing	-25
R04	Trigger quality	Description is generic (≤1 specific phrase)	-15
R05	Body length	400–500 lines	-5
R05	Body length	>500 lines	-10
R06	Code examples	Complex concepts with no examples	-5
R06	Code examples	No examples at all in a technical skill	-10
R07	Scope note	No scope note / cross-references	-3

---

Agents

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
R09	description present	Missing	-25
R09	<example> blocks	Exactly 1 example	-5
R09	<example> blocks	Zero examples	-15
R10	model declared	Not declared	-5
R10	model appropriate	Wrong tier for task (e.g. opus for parsing)	-5
R11	tools declared	Not declared	-5
R11	Unused tools	Each tool declared but not used in body	-3 each
R12	Output format	No output format spec in body	-10
R11	Write on read-only	Audit/review/scan agent declares Write or Edit	-10

---

Commands

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
--	description present	Missing	-25
R18	argument-hint present	Command takes input but no hint	-5
R14	Steps numbered	Multi-step body with no numbered steps	-10
R15	Empty input handling	No handling for empty/missing input	-10
R16	Output format	No output format defined	-10
R17	Error paths	No error handling for missing files or bad data	-5

---

Shared Partials

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
R19	user-invocable: false	Missing or set to true	-25
R20	Purpose clear	Description doesn't state it's a partial	-10

---

Rules

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
R21	description present	Missing frontmatter description	-10
R21	Format: bold imperative	No bold imperative opening	-5
R21	Format: rationale	No rationale following the imperative	-10
R22	Enforceability	Rule is not specific/testable	-10
R23	Budget	Rule file over 500 lines	-15
R26	Conflicts with other rules	Direct contradiction with another rule in same set	-20
R24	Duplicates tooling	Re-states what eslint/ruff/clippy already catches	-10

---

Hooks

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
--	Valid JSON	hooks.json fails JSON parse	-25
R27	Event names valid	Uses unrecognized event name	-15
R27	Case correct	Event name has wrong case (e.g. pretooluse)	-10
R29	Scripts exist	Referenced script file does not exist	-20
--	Command safety	Hook command contains dangerous patterns (rm -rf, git push --force, DROP TABLE)	-15
--	Matcher regex valid	Matcher pattern doesn't compile as valid regex	-10
--	Timeout reasonable	Hook specifies timeout > 30s (likely hangs)	-5

---

plugin.json

Check	Condition	Penalty
name present	Missing	-25
version is semver	Present but not valid semver	-10
description present	Missing	-5

---

.mcp.json

Check	Condition	Penalty
Valid JSON	File fails JSON parse	-25
Server command present	MCP server entry missing command field	-15

---

Settings Files (.claude/settings.json, .claude/settings.local.json)

Check	Condition	Penalty
Valid JSON	File fails JSON parse	-25
No hardcoded secrets	Contains API keys, tokens, or passwords	-25
Permission mode sanity	bypassPermissions enabled in a shared project settings file (not .local)	-15
Recognized keys	Contains unknown top-level keys not in Claude Code schema	-5 each, cap -15
Hook definitions valid	hooks key present — check event names valid and case-correct	-10 per invalid

---

CLAUDE.md

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
R49	File exists	No CLAUDE.md in plugin root	-10
--	Under 200 lines	CLAUDE.md exceeds 200 lines	-5
R38	Actionable content	CLAUDE.md has no actionable guidance (just filler)	-10
R33	Build/run command	No instructions for how to build or run the project	-10
R34	Test command	No instructions for how to run tests	-5
R35	Architecture overview	No structure/component description (what lives where)	-5
R36	Valid @ imports	Contains @ import syntax referencing a file that doesn't exist	-10
R37	No stale file references	Mentions files or functions that no longer exist in the repo	-10
R38	Actionability ratio	>60% of content is description rather than instructions	-5
--	Prerequisites section	No section covering required tools, versions, or setup steps	-5
R39	No rule conflicts	CLAUDE.md says X while a .claude/rules/ file says not-X	-15

---

Memory Files

Applies to .md files located in ~/.claude/projects/*/memory/ directories.

Rule	Check	Pass (+0)	Penalty
--	Has YAML frontmatter	Present	-15
--	name in frontmatter	Present	-10
--	description in frontmatter	Present	-10
--	type in frontmatter	Present (user/feedback/project/reference)	-5
--	Content matches declared type	Yes	-10
--	Referenced in MEMORY.md index	Yes	-5 (orphaned memory)
R37	Stale content	No references to removed files or functions	-10

---

All Artifact Types: Vague Quantifiers

Rule	Check	Condition	Penalty
R01	Vague quantifier	Each occurrence of: "appropriate", "relevant", "as needed", "sufficient", "adequate", "reasonable", "properly", "correctly", "some", "several", "various" without measurable criteria	-2 each
R01	Vague quantifier cap	Total vague quantifier penalty	max -20

---

Cross-Component (--plugin flag)

Applied when linting an entire plugin rather than individual files.

Check	Condition	Penalty
Broken partial refs	Command references commands/shared/X.md that doesn't exist	-20
Broken skill refs	Agent references plugin:skill that isn't installed	-20
Missing scripts	Hook references script that doesn't exist	-20
Orphaned files	Agent/command/skill file not referenced by anything	-5 per file
Contradictions	Two rules/instructions in same plugin directly contradict each other	-15 per pair

---

Score Bands

Range	Label	Meaning
90–100	Excellent	Production-ready; minor or no issues
80–89	Good	Solid; one or two non-critical gaps
70–79	Adequate	Meets threshold; noticeable gaps to address
60–69	Weak	Below threshold; significant issues
<60	Rewrite	Fundamental problems; recommend rewriting from scratch

Default pass threshold: 70. Configurable in .claude/nlpm.local.md.

---

Calibration Examples

Example 1: Excellent Agent (95/100)

Artifact:

---
name: dependency-auditor
description: |
  Audits project dependencies for security vulnerabilities, outdated packages,
  and license compliance issues. Use this agent when checking npm/pip/cargo
  dependencies, reviewing package.json or requirements.txt, or running a
  security audit before release.

  <example>
  Context: Developer preparing for production release
  user: check if any of our dependencies have known CVEs
  assistant: I'll audit your dependencies for security vulnerabilities using
  the package manifest files...
  </example>

  <example>
  Context: CI pipeline running pre-merge checks
  user: /audit-deps
  assistant: Running dependency audit. Scanning package.json and
  package-lock.json for vulnerabilities and license issues...
  </example>
model: sonnet
color: yellow
tools: ["Read", "Glob", "Bash"]
skills: ["nlpm:conventions"]
---

You are a dependency security auditor. Read all package manifests in the
project. For each dependency, check version ranges against known vulnerability
patterns. Report findings in the format below.

## Output Format
### Summary
Total dependencies: N | Vulnerable: N | Outdated: N | License issues: N

### Findings
| Package | Version | Issue | Severity |
|---------|---------|-------|----------|

Score breakdown:

• Base: 100
• description present and has 3+ specific phrases: 0
• 2 <example> blocks: 0
• model: sonnet declared and appropriate for security analysis: 0
• tools declared with only tools used: 0
• Output format defined: 0
• Read-only agent (no Write/Edit): 0
• Minor: Bash tool declared but body doesn't explicitly call it — one unused tool: -3
• No scope note in body: -2 (vague: none)

Final: 97/100 — Excellent. One unused tool (Bash declared but body text doesn't explicitly invoke it) costs 3 points.

(For calibration: a 95 example would have zero unused tools and a scope note. The range 90-100 is Excellent regardless of the exact number.)

---

Example 2: Rewrite Agent (41/100)

Artifact:

---
name: code-helper
description: "Helps with code tasks in an appropriate and relevant way as needed."
model: opus
tools: ["Read", "Write", "Edit", "Bash", "Glob", "WebSearch", "WebFetch"]
---

You are a helpful coding assistant. Analyze the code and make appropriate
improvements. Handle edge cases as needed and ensure the output is relevant
to the user's requirements.

Score breakdown:

• Base: 100
• Zero <example> blocks: -15
• Description is generic (1 vague phrase, 0 specific phrases): -15
• opus declared for a routine code-help task (haiku/sonnet appropriate): -5
• tools declared but too many unused (WebSearch, WebFetch, Glob all declared without body justification): -10 (judged as 3–4 unused, rounded)
• "appropriate" + "relevant" + "as needed" (vague quantifiers, 2 instances): -4
• No output format defined: -10

Total penalties: -59

Final: max(0, 100 - 59) = 41/100 — Rewrite.

(For calibration: the exact number of unused tools and vague quantifier hits can vary by reviewer. The important thing is that this artifact scores well below 60 — multiple fundamental issues.)

---

Example 3: Excellent Rule (92/100)

Artifact:

---
description: "Always use ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} for intra-plugin file references in hooks and scripts"
paths: ["**/.claude/hooks.json", "**/scripts/*.sh"]
---

**Use `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}` for all file paths within a plugin.**

Because plugins are installed at different locations for different users and
environments, hardcoded absolute paths (e.g. `/Users/alice/.claude/plugins/...`)
break when the plugin is installed by anyone other than the original author.
Using `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}` ensures paths resolve correctly regardless of
install location.

Correct:
```json
"command": "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/check.sh"

Incorrect:

"command": "/Users/alice/.claude/plugins/cache/my-plugin/1.0.0/scripts/check.sh"

**Score breakdown:**
- Base: 100
- `description` present: 0
- Bold imperative opening: 0
- Rationale follows: 0
- Specific and testable (can grep for `/Users/` in hooks.json): 0
- `paths` scoped: 0
- Under 500 lines: 0
- Does not duplicate a linter rule: 0
- Minor: no reference to a related rule about portability in other contexts: **-3** (judgment call; not a formal penalty — scoring at 92 reflects excellent but not perfect)
- Vague quantifiers: none: 0

**Final: 92/100** — Excellent. Loses ~8 points for not covering related portability contexts (env vars in MCP configs, etc.) — a judgment call reflected in the score rather than a formal penalty table entry.

---

### Example 4: Weak Rule (40/100)

**Artifact:**
```markdown
Don't write bad code. Code should be clean and well-organized. Avoid using
outdated patterns. Make sure to handle errors appropriately.

Score breakdown:

• Base: 100
• Missing frontmatter (no description field): -10
• No bold imperative opening: -5
• No rationale: -10
• Not specific or testable ("bad code", "clean", "well-organized" are unmeasurable): -10
• "appropriately" (vague quantifier): -2
• "well-organized" (vague): -2
• Duplicates what every linter/formatter already enforces ("clean code"): -10
• Rule is not enforceable by NLPM or any automated tool: -10 (enforceability)

Total penalties: -59

Final: max(0, 100 - 59) = 41/100 — Rewrite.

(Calibrated near 40 as specified. The exact value depends on judgment on "well-organized" as a vague quantifier.)

---

Scope Note

This skill covers the NLPM scoring formula, penalty tables, score bands, and calibration examples. It does NOT cover:

• Artifact schemas and valid field values → see nlpm:conventions
• Patterns and anti-patterns catalog → see nlpm:patterns
• How to run the score command → see commands/score.md