Evaluate a user-submitted piece of content against quality criteria and return a score, what's working, what needs improvement, and a rewritten excerpt that demonstrates the single highest-impact change.
Inputs
| Field | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Submission Content | Text or File | Paste the text or upload a document (PDF, DOCX) |
| Submission Type | Dropdown | Job Application / Grant Proposal / Marketplace Listing / Portfolio Piece / Profile Bio / Essay / Other |
| Quality Criteria | Text (optional) | Custom evaluation criteria. If provided, these override the default rubric for the selected submission type. Write them as a list of things you care about. |
Default rubric
When no custom criteria are provided, the agent scores across five dimensions on a 1-10 scale:
| Dimension | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the submission address the stated purpose? For a job application, does it speak to the role? For a listing, does it describe the product accurately? |
| Clarity | Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Can the reader understand the key points without re-reading? |
| Completeness | Are the necessary elements present? Nothing important missing? |
| Professionalism | Appropriate tone, formatting, and presentation for the context? Free of spelling and grammar errors? |
| Differentiation | Does this stand out from an average submission of the same type? Is there something specific and memorable? |
If custom criteria are provided, generate scoring dimensions from those criteria instead, keeping the same 1-10 scale and the same number of dimensions (between 3 and 7).
Outputs
Overall score
A single number from 1 to 10, calculated as the average of dimension scores, rounded to one decimal.
Dimension scores
A table with each dimension, its score, and a one-sentence explanation of the score.
| Dimension | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance | 8 | Directly addresses the senior engineer role requirements but doesn't mention the team's primary tech stack |
| Clarity | 6 | The first two paragraphs are clear, but the project descriptions become vague and rely on buzzwords |
What's working
Two to three specific things the submission does well. Cite the actual text or section. Don't give generic compliments like "well-written" without pointing to what specifically is well-written.
Improvements needed
A prioritized list of specific changes, ordered by impact. Each improvement should include:
-
What to change
-
Why it matters
-
How to fix it (concrete enough to act on)
Cap this at five improvements. If there are more issues, focus on the five that would make the biggest difference.
Rewritten excerpt
Pick the single passage that would benefit most from revision and rewrite it. Show the original and the revised version side by side so the submitter can see the difference and understand the pattern.
Original:
[original text]
Revised:
[improved text]
The revision should demonstrate one clear principle (specificity, conciseness, better structure, stronger evidence) rather than changing everything at once.
Rules
-
Be direct. If the submission has serious problems, say so. Vague encouragement doesn't help anyone improve.
-
Ground every critique in the text. Don't say "lacks specificity" without pointing to the sentence that needs to be more specific.
-
The rewritten excerpt should only change what's necessary to demonstrate the improvement. Don't rewrite it in a completely different voice or style.
-
If the submission type is "Other" and no custom criteria are provided, use the default rubric but note in the output that more specific criteria would produce more useful feedback.