Project MAS Rubric | |||||
Basic agent | |||||
Criteria | Poor | Average | Good | Ratings | Max Pts |
Dialogflow intents and entities | Poor or lacking implementation of intents and entities, preventing the agent from functioning | Not all intents and entities that were instructed were properly implemented, disabling certain functionalities | All instructed intents and entities were properly implemented |
| |
Recipe filtering | Poor or lacking implementation of recipe filtering, preventing the agent from functioning | All instructed recipe filtering functions were properly implemented | |||
Conversation patterns and agent responses | Poor or lacking implementation of conversational patterns and agent responses, preventing the agent from functioning | All instructed conversational patterns and agent responses were properly implemented | |||
Visuals | Poor or lacking implementation of visuals, preventing the agent from functioning | All instructed pages were properly implemented |
| ||
Total points |
| ||||
Agent robustness | |||||
Criteria | Poor | Average | Good | Ratings | Max Pts |
Robustness of intent recognition | The visuals merely display what the agent says at any point. (0) |
| |||
Robustness of conversation |
| ||||
Navigation and repair |
| ||||
Total points |
| ||||
Agent extensions | |||||
Criteria | Poor | Average | Good | Ratings | Max Pts |
Level of difficulty | No extensions have been implemented, or the extensions mostly comprise duplicating components of the basic agent. |
| |||
Task fulfillment quality | Extensions were made to the filtering capacities of the agent and the way in which filtering outcomes are communicated visually and orally, that considerably improve the way in which users can find a recipe from the database |
| |||
Agent design quality | Little to no extensions to improve on the design of the agent have been made to the visual support section or the conversation patterns and agent responses section. Extensions made hardly improve the agent design quality. | not orginal, or limited to visuals / conversaion patterns and agent responses | original |
| |
Total points |
| ||||
Written report | |||||
Criteria | Poor | Average | Good | Ratings | Max Pts |
Introduction and Dialog engine |
| ||||
| |||||
Testing | It is unclear from the testing section how the assistant is performing. (0) | The testing section gives a reasonable account of how the assistant was tested and what were the main findings. (3) | The capacities and points of improvement of the assistant are evaluated in a structured way and clearly presented in the testing section. (5) |
| |
| |||||
Clarity and presentation | The writing style, structure and lay-out are messy and unclear. (0) | The writing style and presentation are up to standards, but some parts are unclear. (4) | Very clear report in terms of writing style, structure and lay-out. (8)
|
| |
Total points |
|
General
Content
Integrations
0 Comments