Current Scoring Surfaces
| Surface | Dimensions | Output | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication analytics | professionalism 20%, clarity 20%, responsiveness 15%, emotional intelligence 15%, collaboration 15%, adaptability 15% | overall_score 0-100 | src/core/analytics/scoring.py, src/core/analytics/user_analytics.py |
| Task evaluation | accuracy 30%, communication 20%, compliance 20%, timeliness 15%, initiative 15%; optional workplace behavior | pass, partial, fail; overall_score 0-100 | src/core/tasks/task_evaluation_service.py |
| Workplace behavior | communication quality, stakeholder management, ownership followthrough, meeting followthrough, relationship impact, recovery behavior, business judgment | pass, partial, fail; rubric scores 0-100 | src/core/simulation/context_frame.py |
| Competency snapshots | communication clarity, stakeholder management, prioritization quality, risk handling, collaboration maturity | readiness level: developing, progressing, ready, advanced | src/core/tasks/task_assessment_helpers.py |
| Session assessment | communication quality, decision quality, stakeholder outcome quality, delivery effectiveness | recommendation: keep momentum, focused recovery, immediate intervention | src/core/tasks/task_assessment_helpers.py |
Draft Competency Rubric
Use this as product-facing rubric language. It preserves current backend dimensions while making scoring explainable to learners and admins.| Competency | Weight | Developing | Progressing | Ready | Advanced | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Communication clarity | 20% | Messages or artifacts are vague, missing decisions, or hard to act on. | Intent is mostly clear, but key owner/date/risk details are inconsistent. | Clear, concise, audience-appropriate updates with needed context. | Anticipates ambiguity, summarizes tradeoffs, and makes next actions obvious. | Message quality, task artifact feedback, context-window quotes |
| Stakeholder management | 20% | Misses stakeholders, uses wrong channel, or creates avoidable friction. | Responds to stakeholders but needs reminders or uneven tone. | Aligns right people, handles sensitive topics in right venue, follows up. | Proactively manages expectations, escalates early, protects trust. | Relationship edges, approvals, escalation events, thread/DM choices |
| Prioritization quality | 15% | Works on wrong item, ignores urgency, or lets blockers linger. | Recognizes priority but struggles under competing work. | Sequences work by impact, deadline, dependency, and risk. | Re-plans under pressure and communicates priority shifts cleanly. | Task state, priority shifts, active task load, overdue/blocked signals |
| Risk handling | 15% | Fails to spot compliance, customer, HR, or delivery risk. | Identifies some risks but response is late or incomplete. | Names material risks, chooses safe process, and documents mitigations. | Turns weak signals into prevention steps and high-confidence escalation. | Consequence events, sensitive-policy routing, policy grounding |
| Collaboration maturity | 15% | Creates noise, ignores meetings/action items, or over-tags colleagues. | Participates but needs nudges for follow-through and focus. | Collaborates with clear asks, closes action items, and respects attention. | Coordinates groups with minimal churn and strong shared ownership. | Meeting lifecycle, action items, mention nudges, channel behavior |
| Delivery effectiveness | 15% | Output misses criteria or creates rework. | Partial output meets some criteria but needs revision. | Output meets rubric and operational context. | Output is high quality, grounded, timely, and reusable by stakeholders. | Task evaluation, artifact review, session assessment |
Score Bands
| Score | Level | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 0-61 | Developing | Coaching needed before higher-risk work. |
| 62-71 | Progressing | Basic behavior improving; still needs targeted support. |
| 72-81 | Ready | Can handle normal workplace tasks with expected oversight. |
| 82-100 | Advanced | Handles ambiguity, risk, and stakeholders with strong judgment. |
competency_readiness_level() thresholds today: developing under 62, progressing 62-71, ready 72-81, advanced 82+.
Draft Rollup Model
Draw.io source:documentations/architecture/JobSim_Simple_Diagrams.drawio
Implementation Notes
- Keep backend source of truth unchanged at first:
CompetencySnapshotstays five-dimension,SessionAssessmentstays four-dimension. - Map draft
delivery_effectivenessto session assessment directly and to task evaluationoverall_score. - Store rubric explanations in existing
metadatafields before adding schema, unless reporting needs first-class query support. - Use
evidence_snippets,relationship_edges,consequence_events, andevaluation_context_windowsfor auditability. - Avoid inflating scores when data is missing. Current defaults start around 60 for competency and 70 confidence for session assessment, which is safer than auto-perfect scoring for workplace behavior.