Award Bar Score
This is a Hermes-native award-bar-score workflow skill.
Why This Exists
award-bar-score gives "make it award-winning" a measurable meaning: published axes, published weights, a published threshold, and the one axis holding the surface below it — instead of a taste argument nobody can settle.
Do Not Use When
- The request is broad premium quality across decks, PDFs, or posters; use
design-quality-gate.
- The request is frontend implementation, layout, or design-system work; use
frontend.
- The request is WCAG, keyboard, or screen-reader conformance; use
accessibility-audit.
- The request is a rendered capture or a pixel verdict; use
visual-qa.
- The award is a business, sales, or team award with no judged web surface.
Examples
Good example:
- Prompt: score our landing page against the css design awards bar and tell me what is holding it back
- Expected behavior: Prepare award_bar_score/v1 with per-axis UI/UX/innovation scores from rendered evidence, the weighted total against the 8.0 threshold, the binding constraint, and the accessibility/performance tradeoff ledger.
- Why: The request asks for a measured comparison against a published external bar, not a general polish pass.
Bad example:
- Prompt: award-bar-score confirm this site will win website of the day
- Expected behavior: Score the axes against the published model and refuse the outcome claim; a jury scores submissions and OMH does not.
- Why: A rubric self-assessment cannot predict a jury result.
Completion Checklist
- Each of UI, UX, and innovation carries its own score and the rendered evidence it was read from.
- The weighted total is computed from the stated weights and compared against the published threshold.
- The binding constraint names one axis and what moving it requires.
- Any innovation move that costs accessibility or performance budget is recorded as a tradeoff the user chooses.
- No award, jury, placement, or selection outcome is claimed.
Recovery Notes
- If no rendered evidence exists, keep every axis not_observed and route the capture to visual-qa before scoring.
- If the award body publishes no weights, score the axes separately and report the total as unweighted rather than inventing a ratio.
Workflow Lane
- Current lane: Materials and visual summaries (
design-orchestration, apple-design, design-quality-gate, award-bar-score, frontend, accessibility-audit, visual-qa, content-operator, +6 more) - web, accessibility, visual QA, files, and packages.
- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to
oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules:
omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.
Use When
Use when a web surface must be judged against an external award bar: per-axis scores for UI, UX, and innovation, the weighted total against the published threshold, and the one axis holding the score down.
Strong routing signals: `award-bar-score`, `award bar score`, `award winning`, `award-winning`, `award winning website`, `award-winning website`, `award winning design`, `award ready`, `make it award winning`, `design award`, `design awards`, `css design awards`, `cssda`, `awwwards`, `site of the day`, `website of the day`, `wotd`, `score my site`, `어워드`, `디자인 어워드`, `어워드 수준`, `수상작 수준`, `수상 가능한 디자인`, `어워드 받을만한`, `올해의 사이트`
Catalog Metadata
Category: materials
Phase: award-bar-score
Hermes role: operator
Quality tier: design-orchestration-gated
Reasoning demand: standard
Quality bar:
- Score each axis separately with named rendered evidence, then compute the weighted total; an overall impression is not a score and hides which axis is failing.
- Reserve binding-constraint language for a total within about 0.3 of the threshold. Measured axis spread is roughly a twentieth of site spread, so further below the bar a weak axis is a symptom: report that the site needs a level change, never a one-axis fix.
- Load
references/award-judging-model.md for the published axes, weights, and thresholds, the measured per-axis score table, and the stack table that separates entry-fee craft (fluid type, real typography) from optional spend (WebGL).
- Record what an innovation move costs on the accessibility and performance budgets before recommending it; half the sampled motion-heavy winners drop
prefers-reduced-motion, and the two highest-scoring entries keep it, so never present the inaccessible path as the higher-scoring one.
Handoff policy:
Keep axis scoring, the weighted total, the binding-constraint call, and the tradeoff ledger in Hermes. Route implementation to frontend, WCAG evidence to accessibility-audit, and rendered captures to visual-qa; never score an axis from a description of a page instead of the page.
Required inputs:
- the target URL, route, or rendered capture being judged
- the award model and its published axes, weights, and threshold
- the surface's own accessibility and performance budgets
- audience and primary user task
Expected outputs:
- award_bar_score/v1
- per-axis scores with named evidence for UI, UX, and innovation
- the weighted total and its distance from the published threshold
- the binding constraint: the axis whose gain moves the total most
- tradeoff_ledger/v1 when an innovation move costs accessibility or performance budget
- downstream route: frontend, accessibility-audit, visual-qa, or design-quality-gate
Artifact expectations:
- award_bar_score/v1 with prepared_not_observed status
- every axis score cites the rendered evidence it was read from, or stays not_observed
- the weighted total is arithmetic over the stated weights, never an impression
- no claim that a submission would win, place, or be selected
Safety rules:
- A self-assessment against a published rubric is never an award, a jury outcome, or a prediction of one; juries score submissions, and OMH does not.
- Never score an axis without rendered evidence; an unrendered page keeps every axis not_observed.
- Quote axis weights and thresholds only from the award body's published rules, and name the body and the date they were read.
- Accessibility and performance budgets outrank the innovation axis; when a move breaks one, record the tradeoff and let the user choose rather than defaulting to the score.
- Do not call a browser, network service, screenshot tool, or executor from OMH core.
Runtime Evidence
Preferred harness for this skill: coding-handling.
omh runtime record --skill award-bar-score --harness coding-handling --status started
Record observed delegation results; otherwise return not_available or not_observed.
Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.
Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.
1---
2name: "omh-award-bar-score"
3description: "[omh] Hermes award-bar score workflow: score a web surface against published design-award judging axes and name the binding constraint. Use when the user says: award-bar-score, award bar score, award winning, award-winning, award winning website, award-winning website, award winning design, award ready."
4metadata:
5 hermes:
6 tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, materials]
7 category: materials
8 phase: award-bar-score
9 role: operator
10 quality_tier: design-orchestration-gated
11---
12
13# Award Bar Score
14
15This is a Hermes-native `award-bar-score` workflow skill.
16
17## Why This Exists
18
19`award-bar-score` gives "make it award-winning" a measurable meaning: published axes, published weights, a published threshold, and the one axis holding the surface below it — instead of a taste argument nobody can settle.
20
21## Do Not Use When
22
23- The request is broad premium quality across decks, PDFs, or posters; use `design-quality-gate`.
24- The request is frontend implementation, layout, or design-system work; use `frontend`.
25- The request is WCAG, keyboard, or screen-reader conformance; use `accessibility-audit`.
26- The request is a rendered capture or a pixel verdict; use `visual-qa`.
27- The award is a business, sales, or team award with no judged web surface.
28
29## Examples
30
31Good example:
32
33- Prompt: score our landing page against the css design awards bar and tell me what is holding it back
34- Expected behavior: Prepare award_bar_score/v1 with per-axis UI/UX/innovation scores from rendered evidence, the weighted total against the 8.0 threshold, the binding constraint, and the accessibility/performance tradeoff ledger.
35- Why: The request asks for a measured comparison against a published external bar, not a general polish pass.
36
37Bad example:
38
39- Prompt: award-bar-score confirm this site will win website of the day
40- Expected behavior: Score the axes against the published model and refuse the outcome claim; a jury scores submissions and OMH does not.
41- Why: A rubric self-assessment cannot predict a jury result.
42
43## Completion Checklist
44
45- Each of UI, UX, and innovation carries its own score and the rendered evidence it was read from.
46- The weighted total is computed from the stated weights and compared against the published threshold.
47- The binding constraint names one axis and what moving it requires.
48- Any innovation move that costs accessibility or performance budget is recorded as a tradeoff the user chooses.
49- No award, jury, placement, or selection outcome is claimed.
50
51## Recovery Notes
52
53- If no rendered evidence exists, keep every axis not_observed and route the capture to visual-qa before scoring.
54- If the award body publishes no weights, score the axes separately and report the total as unweighted rather than inventing a ratio.
55
56## Workflow Lane
57
58- Current lane: **Materials and visual summaries** (`design-orchestration`, `apple-design`, `design-quality-gate`, `award-bar-score`, `frontend`, `accessibility-audit`, `visual-qa`, `content-operator`, `+6 more`) - web, accessibility, visual QA, files, and packages.
59- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to `oh-my-hermes` or name the adjacent workflow.
60- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`.
61
62## Use When
63
64Use when a web surface must be judged against an external award bar: per-axis scores for UI, UX, and innovation, the weighted total against the published threshold, and the one axis holding the score down.
65
66 Strong routing signals: `award-bar-score`, `award bar score`, `award winning`, `award-winning`, `award winning website`, `award-winning website`, `award winning design`, `award ready`, `make it award winning`, `design award`, `design awards`, `css design awards`, `cssda`, `awwwards`, `site of the day`, `website of the day`, `wotd`, `score my site`, `어워드`, `디자인 어워드`, `어워드 수준`, `수상작 수준`, `수상 가능한 디자인`, `어워드 받을만한`, `올해의 사이트`
67
68## Catalog Metadata
69
70Category: `materials`
71Phase: `award-bar-score`
72Hermes role: `operator`
73Quality tier: `design-orchestration-gated`
74Reasoning demand: `standard`
75
76Quality bar:
77
78- Score each axis separately with named rendered evidence, then compute the weighted total; an overall impression is not a score and hides which axis is failing.
79- Reserve binding-constraint language for a total within about 0.3 of the threshold. Measured axis spread is roughly a twentieth of site spread, so further below the bar a weak axis is a symptom: report that the site needs a level change, never a one-axis fix.
80- Load `references/award-judging-model.md` for the published axes, weights, and thresholds, the measured per-axis score table, and the stack table that separates entry-fee craft (fluid type, real typography) from optional spend (WebGL).
81- Record what an innovation move costs on the accessibility and performance budgets before recommending it; half the sampled motion-heavy winners drop `prefers-reduced-motion`, and the two highest-scoring entries keep it, so never present the inaccessible path as the higher-scoring one.
82
83Handoff policy:
84
85Keep axis scoring, the weighted total, the binding-constraint call, and the tradeoff ledger in Hermes. Route implementation to frontend, WCAG evidence to accessibility-audit, and rendered captures to visual-qa; never score an axis from a description of a page instead of the page.
86
87Required inputs:
88
89- the target URL, route, or rendered capture being judged
90- the award model and its published axes, weights, and threshold
91- the surface's own accessibility and performance budgets
92- audience and primary user task
93
94Expected outputs:
95
96- award_bar_score/v1
97- per-axis scores with named evidence for UI, UX, and innovation
98- the weighted total and its distance from the published threshold
99- the binding constraint: the axis whose gain moves the total most
100- tradeoff_ledger/v1 when an innovation move costs accessibility or performance budget
101- downstream route: frontend, accessibility-audit, visual-qa, or design-quality-gate
102
103Artifact expectations:
104
105- award_bar_score/v1 with prepared_not_observed status
106- every axis score cites the rendered evidence it was read from, or stays not_observed
107- the weighted total is arithmetic over the stated weights, never an impression
108- no claim that a submission would win, place, or be selected
109
110Safety rules:
111
112- A self-assessment against a published rubric is never an award, a jury outcome, or a prediction of one; juries score submissions, and OMH does not.
113- Never score an axis without rendered evidence; an unrendered page keeps every axis not_observed.
114- Quote axis weights and thresholds only from the award body's published rules, and name the body and the date they were read.
115- Accessibility and performance budgets outrank the innovation axis; when a move breaks one, record the tradeoff and let the user choose rather than defaulting to the score.
116- Do not call a browser, network service, screenshot tool, or executor from OMH core.
117
118## Runtime Evidence
119
120Preferred harness for this skill: `coding-handling`.
121
122```sh
123omh runtime record --skill award-bar-score --harness coding-handling --status started
124```
125
126Record observed delegation results; otherwise return `not_available` or `not_observed`.
127Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
128- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
129Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
130
131Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.
132
133Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.