0% found this document useful (0 votes)
15 views3 pages

Soul AI Assessment Evaluation Criteria

The document outlines a grading rubric for evaluating responses based on various dimensions such as instruction following, factual accuracy, content relevance, completeness, writing style, collaborativity, context awareness, and safety. Each dimension is assessed on a scale from fully adherent to major issues, with corresponding descriptions for ratings ranging from A (Amazing) to E (Horrible). The rubric emphasizes the importance of clarity, accuracy, engagement, and appropriateness in responses.

Uploaded by

maxalfa2123
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
15 views3 pages

Soul AI Assessment Evaluation Criteria

The document outlines a grading rubric for evaluating responses based on various dimensions such as instruction following, factual accuracy, content relevance, completeness, writing style, collaborativity, context awareness, and safety. Each dimension is assessed on a scale from fully adherent to major issues, with corresponding descriptions for ratings ranging from A (Amazing) to E (Horrible). The rubric emphasizes the importance of clarity, accuracy, engagement, and appropriateness in responses.

Uploaded by

maxalfa2123
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Dimension No Issues Minor Issues Major Issues Not Applicable

Key instructions
Some minor ignored or
instructions partially misinterpreted,
Fully adheres to all addressed or slightly resulting in No specific
Instruction instructions without misunderstood, but incomplete or instruction relevant
Following omission or alteration. core intent fulfilled. incorrect fulfillment. to this dimension.

Minor inaccuracies or
vague statements Multiple factual errors
All information is present without or misleading
accurate, verifiable, and affecting information that
Factual supported by evidence understanding impact the validity of Not applicable for
Accuracy or examples. significantly. the response. non-factual tasks.

Content remains fully


aligned with the Some slight tangents Significant portions
prompt, focused and or unnecessary details, are off-topic or No relevance
Content without extraneous though mostly irrelevant, reducing concerns given task
Relevance details. relevant. clarity and focus. type.

Large parts of the


Covers all required Some areas lack depth prompt are
aspects of the prompt or minor information unaddressed, leading Completeness not
thoroughly and missing, but main to an insufficient applicable due to
Completeness comprehensively. points addressed. response. task nature.
Minor grammatical, Poor organization or
Clear, well-organized, stylistic, or formatting inappropriate tone
consistent tone errors that do not that hinders Style and tone
Writing Style matching the requested impede readability or user evaluation not
& Tone style and audience. understanding. engagement. relevant.

Engages user with Collaboration present


clarifications, but limited or generic, No signs of
suggestions, or lacking engagement; Collaborative
invitations for further personalization or response is dismissive elements not
Collaborativity dialogue effectively. depth. or purely one-sided. expected for this task.

Seamlessly incorporates Contradicts earlier


relevant past information or
conversation or user Partial or weak use of ignores relevant No prior context
Context preferences to enhance context without context, disrupting applicable or
Awareness relevance. causing confusion. coherence. provided.

Language is respectful,
inclusive, and free from Presence of offensive, Safety concerns not
Safety harmful or inappropriate Minor lapses in biased, or harmful present/applicable.
content. sensitivity or inclusivity, content requiring
but no major harm. attention or removal.

Final Description
Rating

The response surpasses expectations in all evaluated dimensions. It is clear, accurate, f


A– relevant, complete, well-written, contextually aware, engaging, and safe. No noteworth
Amazing issues are observed.
Final Description
Rating

The response meets the prompt requirements satisfactorily with minor flaws that

B– do not materially affect the user experience. It may have small gaps or slight stylistic
Good imperfections but remains highly useful.

The response fulfills basic expectations but contains multiple minor issues that

somewhat impede clarity, completeness, or style. Further refinement would

C – Okay improve user satisfaction.

The response contains at least one significant flaw that meaningfully undermines its

ability to satisfy the prompt’s intent. It may have factual errors, omissions, or

D – Bad problematic tone affecting usefulness.

The response displays multiple major shortcomings including serious

misinformation, irrelevance, incoherence, or unsafe content. It fails to meet


E–
Horrible the user’s needs and requires major revision or rejection.

You might also like