ExecRubrics: Executable Tool-Augmented Rubrics for Verifiable and Efficient Long-Form Evaluation

Rubrics aim to make language-model evaluation transparent by decomposing response quality into interpretable criteria. However, natural-language rubrics are often ambiguous, require LLM judges, and typically assume criteria aggregated through linear weighted sums, limiting their ability to capture dependencies, alternatives, penalties, and override conditions. We propose ExecRubrics, a framework for representing rubrics as compact executable programs. ExecRubrics encodes evaluation logic as verifiable Python scoring functions, giving natural-language rubric intent an operational semantics: a fixed decision procedure that can be inspected, executed, and edited. On three long-form response benchmarks -- HealthBench, HelpSteer, and ArgQuality -- we show that ExecRubrics can recover substantial preference signal without an LLM judge at evaluation time. On ArgQuality and HelpSteer, the strongest executable variants are within 1.1 and 4 percentage points, respectively, of the direct GPT-5.5 agentic baseline. Executable rubrics are also considerably faster, achieving a 192x average speedup. We show that incorporating external logic and resources from text processing libraries such as NLTK and spaCy can further improve preference accuracy. Our results suggest a novel way of approaching automated evaluation, by offering a faster, more explainable, and less ambiguous alternative to black-box rubric evals, particularly in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and banking where precision and auditability are critical.

Rubrics as Privileged Information for Open-Ended Generation

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD), where a single model acts as both student and teacher with different contexts, has shown promise in verifiable domains like math, where hard privileged information (PI) in the form of ground-truth answers structurally constrains valid continuations. We extend OPSD to open-ended generation using soft PI in the form of rubrics that guide preferences but admit many valid responses. Rubrics have served as scalar rewards for reinforcement learning (RL); we show that they provide substantially richer signal as dense PI for distillation, and contrary to intuition, soft rubric PI provides a larger and more effective training signal on student roll-outs than hard reference completion PI in this regime. A reference completion is one point in a set of valid responses, so distilling towards it over-constrains the student, while rubrics specify the preference structure shared across the set of valid responses. We show the effectiveness of using rubrics as PI for open-ended generation across Qwen and Llama model families and show that it outperforms rubric-as-reward (RaR) RL using HealthBench, a benchmark that grades open-ended health responses against physician-created rubrics, providing dense token-level supervision for open-ended tasks; RuPI beats RaR RL by up to +0.10 absolute score and, under matched recipe and KL direction, beats reference-PI by +0.034 to +0.079 absolute score across three models. We further show that these findings generalize to training on the RubricHub Science corpus and evaluating on ResearchQA: soft rubric PI outperforms both reference-PI distillation and RaR RL (66.6% vs. 64.2% and 57.6%).

Project Kaleidoscope: Contextual, Human-Aligned Evaluation for Real-World AI Applications

Evaluations (Evals) are a deployment bottleneck for real-world AI applications: public benchmarks rarely match a team's users, context, or policies, and human review is often tedious to scale. Motivated by our work with AI applications in the public sector, this project addresses recurring evaluation challenges encountered when applications must satisfy local policy and governance requirements. We present Kaleidoscope, an integrated workflow for contextual functional evaluation that links persona-based test generation, contextualized rubrics, and human review for reliability-gated automated scoring. Generated test cases are scored against application-specific rubrics; human annotations provide reviewable labels; and LLM judges automate scoring only when their agreement with those labels meets a configured threshold. Kaleidoscope is therefore a practical, inspectable, iterative workflow for product teams. We report early evidence from a three-week pilot across four organizational use cases and custom-rubric judge experiments on 108 annotated Q\&A pairs spanning four domains and 14 evaluation dimensions. The results highlight useful features for end-to-end reliable, automated scoring.

SkillCoach: Self-Evolving Rubrics for Evaluating and Enhancing Agentic Skill-Use

Skills are becoming a reusable operational layer for LLM agents, encoding SOPs, domain rules, tool workflows, scripts, and validation routines. In realistic skill repositories, overlapping skills make reliable skill-use difficult. Final verifier success is too coarse for both evaluation and training, since an agent may pass through trial and error while selecting distractor skills, skipping required steps, composing workflows incorrectly or omitting final checks. We introduce SkillCoach, a self-evolving rubric framework for evaluating and enhancing agentic skill-use. SkillCoach derives skill-grounded process rubrics from real rollouts and evaluates trajectories along four dimensions: skill selection, skill following, skill composition, and skill-grounded reflection. It keeps the external verifier as a separate outcome signal, allowing process quality to be distinguished from accidental task success. The evolved rubrics further serve as process supervision for selecting high-quality training trajectories. Experiments show that evolved rubrics substantially improve evaluation quality, expose failures hidden by final accuracy, and provide stronger supervision signals than outcome-only filtering for enhancing agentic skill-use.

Rethinking Reward Supervision: Rubric-Conditioned Self-Distillation

Post-training of reasoning language models is commonly driven by supervised distillation and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Distillation often relies on chain-of-thought annotations that are expensive to obtain and may themselves be noisy, incomplete, or partially incorrect; even when the final solution is correct, an imperfect rationale can interfere with learning. Reinforcement learning with verified rewards, on the other hand, typically compresses evaluative feedback into a scalar signal, obscuring which aspects of a response should be improved. We propose \textbf{Rubric-Conditioned Self-Distillation}, a framework that incorporates rubrics as structured, fine-grained feedback for on-policy self-distillation. Our method conditions the teacher model on criterion-level rubrics and uses it to provide token-level guidance on the student's own sampled trajectories. This design avoids treating a single reference rationale as the sole supervision target. Instead, rubrics specify what a strong response should satisfy, enabling more fine-grained credit assignment over the reasoning process than scalar reward optimization. We instantiate this framework with a two-stage pipeline that first learns to generate task-specific rubrics and then trains a rubric-guided reasoner. We evaluate on a diverse suite of science reasoning benchmarks and results show that rubric-conditioned self-distillation effectively converts rubric-level criteria into token-level guidance over the reasoning process, surpassing GRPO by 1.0 points and OPSD by 0.9 points on average.

Case-Specific Rubrics for Clinical AI Evaluation: Methodology, Validation, and LLM-Clinician Agreement Across 823 Encounters

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.