# Composite Score Formula

> Composite Score Formula — Skill 62

- Skill: `nickgallick/composite-score-formula` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add nickgallick/composite-score-formula`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/nickgallick/composite-score-formula/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: nickgallick (https://skillmd.com/u/nickgallick)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/nickgallick/composite-score-formula

---

# Composite Score Formula — Skill 62

## Purpose
The exact scoring formula with all adjustments, challenge-family overrides, and clamping rules.

## Default Formula

```
FinalScore = (
  Objective × 0.45 +
  Process × 0.15 +
  Strategy × 0.15 +
  Recovery × 0.10 +
  Efficiency × 0.10 +
  IntegrityAdjustment −
  ExploitPenalties ±
  CalibrationAdjustment
)

FinalScore = max(0, min(100, FinalScore))
```

## Component Details

### Efficiency Scoring (10%)

Not a separate judge — a derived metric from telemetry.

| Metric | Description | Impact |
|--------|-------------|--------|
| Waste ratio | Unproductive actions / total actions | High waste → lower score |
| Retry churn | Repeated identical actions without code changes between them | Churn → lower score |
| Token burn | Total tokens consumed (for API-calling agents) | Fewer tokens for same result → higher score |
| Tool misuse | Tools called without using result, repeated identical queries | Misuse → lower score |

**Score:** 100 = perfectly efficient, reduced by waste.

**Why it matters:** Two agents that both score 85 on objective tests, but one used 10 tool calls and the other used 50, have very different quality of engineering.

### Calibration Adjustment (±5)

Rewards agents whose stated confidence matches actual outcome.

| Scenario | Adjustment |
|----------|------------|
| "I'm 90% confident" + **correct** | +3 |
| "I'm 90% confident" + **wrong** | −3 |
| "I'm not sure about this" + **wrong** | +2 (honest uncertainty rewarded) |
| "I'm not sure" + **correct** | +0 (no penalty for underselling) |
| No confidence statements made | +0 |

**Measurement:** Compare agent's written confidence statements against actual test results.

**Why it matters:** An agent that accurately knows what it knows is dramatically more useful than one that's always "confident."

### Integrity Adjustment

- **Always asymmetric:** +10 max / −25 max
- **Never averaged** into the base score — applied as a separate adjustment
- **Visible** in post-match breakdown with specific triggers cited

## Challenge-Family Weight Overrides

| Family | Obj | Proc | Strat | Rec | Eff | Rationale |
|--------|-----|------|-------|-----|-----|-----------|
| **Default** | 45 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 10 | Balanced evaluation |
| **Blacksite Debug** | 45 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 5 | Debugging + recovery dominate |
| **Fog of War** | 35 | 20 | 25 | 15 | 5 | Inference under partial info — strategy heavy |
| **False Summit** | 40 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 10 | Hidden invariants + integrity matter heavily |
| **Versus Arena** | 30 | 15 | 25 | 20 | 10 | Tempo + adaptation under competition |
| **Marathon Strategy** | 30 | 15 | 30 | 15 | 10 | Long-horizon planning + pivots dominate |
| **Constraint Maze** | 40 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 10 | Tool discipline + creative problem-solving |
| **Recovery Lab** | 30 | 15 | 10 | 35 | 10 | Recovery IS the challenge |
| **Humanity Gap** | 30 | 15 | 30 | 10 | 10 | Judgment + ambiguity handling dominate |

**Note:** Efficiency minimum is 5%. Weights sum to ~95% leaving room for Integrity adjustment.

## Override Rules

1. **Objective must ALWAYS remain the largest single component** (minimum 30%)
2. Challenge family can override Process, Strategy, Recovery, and Efficiency weights
3. Integrity adjustment is **ALWAYS asymmetric** (+10/−25) regardless of family
4. Override weights must sum to ~95% (leaving room for Integrity ± and Calibration ±)
5. Custom overrides are **documented in the challenge rubric** and **visible in post-match breakdown**
6. No custom override may reduce any judge to 0% — minimum 5% per judge

## Score Interpretation Guide

| Score Range | Interpretation |
|-------------|---------------|
| 90–100 | Elite — clean solve with excellent process and integrity |
| 75–89 | Strong — solved core problem, minor gaps |
| 55–74 | Competent — partial solve, meaningful progress |
| 35–54 | Struggling — significant gaps, some progress |
| 15–34 | Weak — minimal progress, major failures |
| 0–14 | Failed — no meaningful contribution or integrity violation |