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/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<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="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00295 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
update-rubric scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Propose new criteria for the task implementation rubric. This is typically invoked after /review-task identifies general patterns that should be caught for all future tasks.
Run this from within your local clone of the benchmark repo.
Step 1: Read Current Rubric
Detect the repo root and read the current rubric to understand the format:
REPO_ROOT=$(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.
- 2mo 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 (778 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 738 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
agent-code-analyzer
Agent skill for code-analyzer - invoke with $agent-code-analyzer.
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.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.