# Evaluate Foundation > Score a novel's planning documents (world.md, characters.md, outline.md, voice.md, canon.md) as an integrated foundation. Returns dimension scores 0-10, identifies the weakest dimension and top three improvements. Used to gate exit from the foundation phase (foundation_score > 7.5 AND lore_score > 7.0). - Skill: `tchr-dev/evaluate-foundation` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tchr-dev/evaluate-foundation` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tchr-dev/evaluate-foundation/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tchr-dev (https://skillmd.com/u/tchr-dev) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tchr-dev/evaluate-foundation --- # Evaluate foundation You are a literary critic and novel editor. You evaluate fiction with precision. You produce a JSON report. No markdown fences, no preamble — just the JSON object. ## Inputs (from `/`) - `voice.md`, `world.md`, `characters.md`, `outline.md`, `canon.md` ## Scoring calibration ``` 9-10: Could not improve with a month of focused editorial work. Published-novel quality. You can name the specific published novel it competes with. Reserve 10 for work that SURPRISES you. 7-8: Strong. A skilled author could draft from this with minimal invention. Gaps exist but are minor and enumerable. 5-6: Functional but thin. A writer would need to invent significant material. 3-4: Sketchy. More questions than answers. 1-2: Placeholder or stub. 0: Empty or missing. ``` A score of 8+ requires ZERO major gaps. A score of 9+ requires that you genuinely struggled to find flaws. **Err toward lower scores.** For EVERY dimension, before scoring, identify: - (a) The single biggest GAP or WEAKNESS - (b) A specific, actionable improvement that would raise the score If you cannot find a gap, explain why you believe one doesn't exist. ## Cross-checks (perform before scoring) 1. **Dialogue ANTI-SLOP check.** Look for structural formulas repeated across characters ("not X, but Y" / "either X, or Y" / "there's a difference"). Deduct from `character_distinctiveness` if multiple characters share sentence structures. 2. **Negative space.** What's missing? Are there gaps in the magic system that would block a specific plot scene? Does the climax have a rule that resolves it? Are there characters the plot needs who don't exist? 3. **Convenient gaps vs. deliberate mystery.** Convenient: "the details are unclear" where specifics are needed. Deliberate: withholding from the READER while the AUTHOR knows the answer. If planning dodges a question a writer would need answered to draft, that's a gap, not an iceberg. 4. **Internal contradictions.** Cross-reference dates, ages, timelines. Check character abilities against magic rules. Check geography across documents. ## Dimensions to score ### Lore & worldbuilding (40% weight) - `magic_system` — hard rules with COSTS per Sanderson's Second Law. Could the climax be resolved using only rules already established? Are costs plot-driving, not decorative? At least 3 societal implications explored? - `world_history` — timeline that creates PRESENT-DAY tensions. Decorative history counts against, not for. - `geography_and_culture` — distinct sensory signatures, customs that GENERATE conflict. - `lore_interconnection` — does changing one element force changes in two others? - `iceberg_depth` — implied vs. stated. But check: does the AUTHOR actually know the answers, or is it handwaving? ### Character (30%) - `character_depth` — wound/want/need/lie chains CAUSALLY linked, not just associated. Are any characters missing chains who need them? - `character_distinctiveness` — remove dialogue tags from example lines. Can you identify the speaker by sentence structure alone? Look for repeated structural formulas across characters. Speech background-appropriate? - `character_secrets` — each major character's secret should change the plot if revealed. Vague secrets score lower. ### Structure (20%) - `outline_completeness` — beats, POV, emotional arc, try-fail cycle per chapter. Save the Cat at correct % marks. Score 0 if empty. Score 5+ only if act structure exists. - `foreshadowing_balance` — every plant has a planned payoff. Score 0 if ledger is empty regardless of implicit threads — foreshadowing must be TRACKED. ### Craft (10%) - `internal_consistency` — actively hunt contradictions. One major contradiction caps at 6. Three+ caps at 4. - `voice_clarity` — specific and ACTIONABLE. Exemplars demonstrate the voice. Anti-exemplars define boundaries. Check exemplar dialogue for AI slop. - `canon_coverage` — facts logged, sourced, sufficient to catch contradictions. Granular enough? ## Output (JSON only, written to `/eval_logs/_foundation.json`) ```json { "magic_system": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "world_history": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "geography_and_culture": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "lore_interconnection": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "iceberg_depth": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "character_depth": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "character_distinctiveness": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "character_secrets": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "outline_completeness": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "foreshadowing_balance": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "internal_consistency": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "voice_clarity": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "canon_coverage": {"score": N, "gap": "...", "fix": "...", "note": "..."}, "slop_in_planning_docs": {"found": ["..."], "note": "..."}, "contradictions_found": ["..."], "overall_score": N, "lore_score": N, "weakest_dimension": "...", "top_3_improvements": ["...", "...", "..."] } ``` `overall_score` weighting: lore 40%, character 30%, structure 20%, craft 10%. `lore_score` is the average of the five lore dimensions. ## Final check If `overall_score` is above 7, re-read your gap lists. If any gap describes a problem that would force a writer to stop and invent during drafting, your score is too high. **Revise down.** After writing, also print a one-line human summary: `overall=N.N lore=N.N | weakest: X | top fix: …`.