{{ summaryTitle }}
{{ summaryValue }}

{{ summaryLine }}

Structure{{ resultsReady ? computation.values.rubric_type_label : '—' }} Criteria{{ resultsReady ? computation.values.criterion_labels.length : '—' }} Audit{{ resultsReady ? auditSummary : '—' }}
Keep the title concise enough for table and export headings.
Choose the audience who will use the descriptors to understand or review the work.
Use one or two observable outcomes that every criterion can connect to.
Use analytic when criterion-level scoring and feedback are the main goal.
Four levels usually balance clear progression with a manageable matrix.
Use the same total expected by the assignment or gradebook.
pts
Rubric criteria:
Open a row to edit the criterion, evidence focus, and weight. Up to six criteria are shareable in the URL.
share
Equalizes the visible criteria to a total of 100 without changing their labels or evidence.
The standard default balances print length and usable evidence cues.
Rounding changes displayed allocations only; normalized shares retain full precision.
Leave blank when no formal standard or course outcome applies.
Keep cues on when learners will use the rubric before submission or during revision.
{{ params.include_revision_cues ? 'Included' : 'Not included' }}
{{ header }}Copy
{{ cell }}

The chart renderer is unavailable. Point allocations remain available in the rubric matrix and draft.

Audit itemStatusEvidenceNext actionCopy
{{ row.item }}{{ row.status }}{{ row.evidence }}{{ row.action }}
{{ rubricMarkdown }}
Reading Level Checker Check an English passage across five grade formulas, compare its target grade band, and find sentences or words worth revising.
Weighted Rubric Score Calculator Calculate a weighted rubric score with percent or relative-point weighting and check criterion contributions, grade bands and rounding effects.
Acceptance Criteria Generator Draft testable acceptance criteria from behaviors and edge cases, then check Gherkin or QA handoff wording for missing coverage and vague terms.
Readability Checker Check English readability in your browser with five grade estimates and reading-ease bands plus audience fit and sentence-level revision cues.

A rubric turns an assignment goal into visible evidence that learners and reviewers can recognize. Its criteria name the qualities that matter, performance levels describe meaningful differences in quality, and descriptors show what those differences look like in the work.

Good criteria assess outcomes rather than task steps. “Uses relevant evidence to support the conclusion” is more useful than “included three paragraphs” when the learning goal is reasoning. Criteria should also be distinct. Overlapping rows can count the same strength or weakness twice, especially after weights are added.

StructureBest fitMain tradeoff
AnalyticSeparate scores and feedback for several criteriaA larger matrix takes longer to design and apply consistently.
Single-pointA clear proficient standard with room for growth and extension notesReviewers must write more case-specific feedback.
HolisticOne judgment about the work as a wholeA single score gives less detail about specific strengths and gaps.

Weights communicate priority, not importance in the abstract. If evidence counts for 40% and formatting counts for 10%, the scoring should reflect that difference for a reason learners can understand. Draft descriptors still need to be tested against real sample work, accommodations, learner needs, and local grading policy before use.

How to Use This Tool:

Begin with observable outcomes, then choose the rubric structure that supports the feedback decision.

  1. Enter a concise assignment title, learner level, and one or two learning goals that describe what the work should demonstrate.
  2. Choose Analytic, Single-point, or Holistic, then select a three-, four-, or five-level scale where that structure uses performance levels.
  3. Add up to six criteria. Give each row a distinct label, an observable evidence focus, and a weight that reflects the assignment priority.
  4. Set total points, descriptor depth, and point rounding. Turn on revision cues when learners will use the rubric to improve a draft.
  5. Read the Rubric matrix alongside Design audit. Revise duplicate criteria, vague evidence, weak alignment, or unexplained weighting before sharing the draft.

Interpreting Results:

The matrix is strongest when adjacent performance descriptions name observable differences rather than relying on vague intensifiers such as “good” and “excellent.” Check whether two reviewers could point to the same evidence and reach a similar judgment.

  • Ready means the draft passed one structural check, not that the rubric is validated for every learner or assignment.
  • Review identifies wording or design that may still be intentional but needs confirmation.
  • Adjust identifies a direct structural problem such as duplicate criterion labels.
  • Displayed point allocations always add to the selected total, but normalized percentages may differ from the raw entered weights when those weights do not total 100.

Technical Details:

Point allocation first turns entered weights into shares. A total weight of zero gives every criterion an equal share; otherwise each criterion is divided by the sum of all entered weights. Raw points retain full precision until the chosen rounding rule is applied.

Formula Core:

For criterion i, entered weight w, total points P, and normalized share s, the allocation is:

si=wi∑j=1nwj,pi=Psi

If every entered weight is zero, s becomes 1 divided by the number of criteria. Rounding uses units of 1 point, 0.5 point, or 0.1 point. Each raw allocation is rounded down to a whole unit, then leftover units go to the largest fractional remainders, with earlier criteria breaking ties. This largest-remainder method keeps the displayed allocations equal to the selected total.

Rule Core:

StructureMatrix constructionScoring behavior
AnalyticOne row per criterion with three to five generated performance descriptionsShows normalized share and rounded points for every criterion.
Single-pointGrowth evidence, Meets standard, and Extension evidence columnsCenters feedback on the proficient description; criterion point columns are omitted.
HolisticOne whole-work description per selected performance levelDivides 0% to 100% into equal level ranges and applies one overall judgment.

Analytic and holistic descriptions move from consistently demonstrated evidence to important gaps or missing evidence. Detailed depth adds an audience or judgment cue. Revision mode adds a next-step sentence below the strongest level; single-point mode instead adds revision language to its growth column.

The design audit checks seven conditions: assignment alignment, number of criteria, weight plan, duplicate labels, evidence specificity, revision support, and rounded point total. Outcomes of at least 30 characters, three or more criteria, weights within 0.5 of 100, distinct labels, and evidence cues of at least 25 characters satisfy their respective readiness rules. These length checks are prompts for review, not measures of educational validity.

Inputs allow one to six criteria and 1 to 1,000 whole total points. Criterion labels need 2 to 80 characters, evidence focuses 10 to 240 characters, and weights may range from 0 to 1,000 before normalization.

Limitations:

Generated descriptors are drafts. They do not know the quality of sample work, required accommodations, disciplinary standards, cultural context, or local grading policy. Review the rubric with representative submissions and revise wording that produces inconsistent judgments or unintended barriers.

Worked Examples:

Whole-point allocation for four criteria

A 50-point analytic rubric with weights 35, 30, 20, and 15 has raw allocations of 17.5, 15, 10, and 7.5 points. Whole-point rounding assigns the tied leftover point to the earlier criterion, producing 18, 15, 10, and 7 points for an exact total of 50.

References: