orchestrate-self-scoringlisted

# Orchestrate Self-Scoring The single highest-leverage activity in the last few hours of a timeboxed challenge is finding your own weakest dimension before a judge does — because at that point you can still act on it. This skill is a structured, honest self-audit against the four published signals, not a confidence-boosting exercise. ## Ground rule: score against evidence, not effort The instinct under deadline pressure is to score generously because you *worked hard* on something. Don't. Score against **what a reviewer would actually see**, the same evidence-anchored discipline the real scoring uses. Time spent is not evidence of quality. ## The four-signal self-audit ### 1. Code zip (30%) — score 0–5 per row, be specific about why | Check | Evidence required | |---|---| | Is there a genuine agent loop, or a decision tree with LLM calls in it? | Point to the actual function. If you can't point to one place where the model decides what happens next, this is a decision tree. | | Are tools well-named, well-described, individually testable? | Open the tool definitions file. Would a stranger know when to use each tool from its description alone? | | Are prompts extracted, readable, and deliberate? | Are they in named files/constants, or inline f-strings? | | Are failure paths (malformed output, tool error, step cap) handled explicitly? | Find the code for each. If it's absent, that's a 0 on this row, not an assumption of graceful degradation. | | Does the README explain des