Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to harbor-framework/terminal-bench-science. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/harbor-framework/terminal-bench-science/main/.claude/skills/update-rubric/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/harbor-framework/terminal-bench-scienceWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/harbor-framework/terminal-bench-science/update-rubric)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/harbor-framework/terminal-bench-science/update-rubric"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/harbor-framework/terminal-bench-science/update-rubric.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00020 | $0.00738 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00369 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
update-rubric scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Propose new criteria for the task implementation rubric. This is typically invoked after /review-task identifies general patterns that should be caught for all future tasks.
Run this from within your local clone of the benchmark repo.
Step 1: Read Current Rubric
Detect the repo root and read the current rubric to understand the format:
REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
cat "$REPO_ROOT/rubrics/task-implementation.toml"
Each criterion follows this TOML format:
[[criteria]]
name = "criterion_name"
description = "One-line description"
guidance = """
Multi-line guidance explaining what to check.
PASS if ... FAIL if ..."""
Step 2: Accept Criteria Descriptions
Parse $ARGUMENTS for the criteria to add. If invoked from /review-task, the rubric improvement candidates will be described in the review summary. If invoked standalone, the user provides a description of what to add.
For each candidate, draft a new [[criteria]] entry matching the existing format:
name: snake_case, concisedescription: one-line summaryguidance: detailed explanation with PASS/FAIL conditions
Present the drafted criteria to the user for review before proceeding.
Step 3: Create Branch and Apply Changes
Detect the GitHub remote and create a branch:
REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
GITHUB_REPO=$(git remote get-url origin | sed 's|.*github.com[:/]\(.*\)\.git$|\1|; s|.*github.com[:/]\(.*\)$|\1|')
BRANCH="rubric/add-criteria-$(date +%Y%m%d)"
cd "$REPO_ROOT"
git checkout -b "$BRANCH"
Append the new [[criteria]] entries to rubrics/task-implementation.toml.
Step 4: Commit, Push, and Create PR
cd "$REPO_ROOT"
git add rubrics/task-implementation.toml
git commit -m "Add rubric criteria: <brief description>"
git push -u origin "$BRANCH"
gh pr create --repo "$GITHUB_REPO" \
--title "Add rubric criteria: <brief description>" \
--body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Summary
- Adds new criteria to `rubrics/task-implementation.toml` based on patterns observed during task review
## New Criteria
<list each new criterion name and one-line description>
## Motivation
<which review or PR prompted this, what pattern was observed>
## Test plan
- [ ] Run `harbor check` against existing tasks to verify new criteria don't cause false positives
- [ ] Verify TOML syntax is valid
Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/claude-code)
EOF
)"
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 105 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A faa8eeb4e117
update-rubric is a skill published in the GitHub repository harbor-framework/terminal-bench-science (548 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 738 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review-triage
Watch open PRs, check CI status, review staleness, merge conflicts, and unanswered review comments. Produces a prioritized watchlist.
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.
github-review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests with detailed, multi-perspective code analysis using parallel subagents. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a PR, asks for code review on a pull request, mentions "review PR", "check this PR", "look at pull request", or references a PR number or GitHub PR URL. Do NOT use for…
nw-review-workflow
Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition reviews.
plan-implementation
Disciplined execution of approved plans with step-by-step verification, phase checkpoints, failure investigation, and mandatory code/security reviews.
security-review
Security vulnerability assessment identifying OWASP risks, injection vectors, authentication issues, and data exposure with severity classification.