KoStard Grade Model
Grade the delivered model against the requirement, not against what could be fixed later. Never edit the model unless the user explicitly requests repairs — then record the baseline grade first, change, and re-grade.
Workflow
- Extract the requirement into a checklist, must-haves separate from nice-to-haves. If the brief is vague, grade the most reasonable literal interpretation and mark unverifiable items
Unknown. - Run the model:
forgecad run <model>.forge.js(in the ForgeCAD repo use the local build,node dist-cli/forgecad.js run ...). If it fails to execute, stop and apply the caps. - Render at least
iso,front,right,topto a scratch dir; add views (back, bottom, close-up, section) when the model is asymmetric, hollow, mechanical, or likely to hide mistakes. - Open and look at every PNG — never score from command output alone. Check silhouette, proportions, required features, part boundaries, interfaces, and whether the model reads as the requested artifact from more than one angle.
- Inspect whenever hidden internals, fit, wall thickness, or assembly behavior are central to the brief — grading without inspecting them caps the score. Delegate evidence choice, commands, and manifest reading to the
forgecad-inspect-modelskill. Findings (unexpected collisions, thin regions, floating bodies, wrong component counts) are evidence, not warnings to wave away. - Score: fill the rubric, apply caps, give a final 0-10 in whole or
.5increments. Unknowns count against the score.
Rubric
| Dimension | Points | What To Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement fit | 4 | Satisfies the stated must-haves, captures the intended object/function, no drift into a generic substitute. |
| Geometric completeness | 2 | Correct silhouette, proportions, visible details, part boundaries, internal structure when required, no missing major components. |
| Mechanical/manufacturing plausibility | 2 | Believable materials/process, real interfaces, clear load paths, fasteners/seats/clearances where needed, no impossible assembly. |
| Validation health | 1 | Runs cleanly, renders from multiple views, targeted inspections reveal no major unaddressed issues. |
| Code/model quality | 1 | Parametric clarity, readable organization, meaningful names, no debug junk, appropriate ForgeCAD APIs. |
Anchors: 9-10 = evidence-backed match for the brief; 7-8 = recognizable and mostly complete, fixable gaps; 5-6 = main idea only; below 5 = broken or loosely related.
Evidence Caps
Maximum scores, applied after the rubric:
- Model does not execute: max
2. - Executes but cannot be rendered: max
4. - No rendered images visually inspected: max
5. - Only one flattering view inspected: max
6. - A must-have requirement is absent: max
6. - Visually recognizable but physically impossible for the requested use: max
6. - Internals, fit, walls, or assembly central to the brief but uninspected: max
7. - Multi-part assembly violates the ForgeCAD component model — sibling imports, assembly-space coordinates inside parts, structural
translate()placement, missing connector mates, or parent/child data flow confusion: max7; max6when the violation makes the assembly brittle or mechanically wrong. - Inspection finds unexpected collisions, floating bodies, critical thin walls, or wrong connectivity: max
6; max5when the defect invalidates the main function. - Delivered as a finished product/prototype but presented with default flat lighting (no
scene()rig), a generically colorful or material-false palette, or teaching-diagram styling: max8. Does not apply when the brief asks for a blockout or bare technical study. - Any score relying on an assumption the evidence cannot verify: mark it
Unknown, never score above8.
Report Format
Score: N / 10
Requirement checklist:
| Item | Result | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ... | Pass/Partial/Fail/Unknown | render/inspection/file evidence |
Evidence reviewed: run outcome; views inspected; inspection highlights.
Why this score: decisive strengths and defects.
Caps applied: list, or `None`.
Next fixes: the 2-5 highest-leverage improvements.
Grading Rules
- A beautiful render with missing functional geometry is not a high score.
- Grade the default returned model unless the user names a parameter set or variant.
- No points for comments, labels, or intentions absent from the geometry.
- Decorative screws, floating labels, and teaching-diagram callouts are not real mechanical interfaces.
- For multi-part assemblies, require the component model: parts build locally at origin, expose connectors/metadata, the parent positions them, and inter-part data flows through parent props and returned metadata.
- Cite which render or inspection finding drove the grade.
- When comparing models, use identical checklist, cameras, inspection evidence, and caps for all.