Rubrics in Personify | Personify Help Center

When you design a rubric in Personify, think of it as more than a scoring guide — it’s also what the AI assistants use to analyze and give feedback. A clear, well-structured rubric makes the AI’s guidance sharper and more useful for your students.

Tips for building rubrics that work well in Personify:

Use specific, measurable criteria
- Good: “Thesis is arguable and supported by at least two pieces of evidence.”
- Weak: “Strong thesis.”
Keep performance levels consistent
- Stick to a simple, balanced scale (for example: Exemplary / Proficient / Developing / Needs Support).
Avoid vague or overlapping language
- The AI works best when each level clearly builds on the one before it.
Tie directly to assignment goals
- If word count or source use matters, include it as a category — the AI will reinforce it with students.
Use concise phrasing
- Long, paragraph-style descriptors can make feedback less focused. Short, direct statements work best.
Use the tools provided
- Formatting options appear above the creation workspace
- Inserting a file allows an AI assistant to transform instructions into a table style rubric if you select:

Below you’ll find sample rubrics showing how different structures and language choices perform in Personify. Use them as models, or adapt them for your own assignments. Once your rubric is created, you can apply it while grading. See how grading works here.

EXAMPLE A

Criteria (weight)	Exemplary (A)	Proficient (B)	Developing (C)	Beginning (D/F)
Thesis & Focus (20)	Specific, arguable thesis; consistently drives the paper.	Clear thesis; mostly guides the paper with minor drift.	Thesis is vague or partially arguable; frequent drift.	No defensible thesis or off-topic.
Research & Sources (20)	Uses sufficient, high-quality scholarly sources; sources are current and relevant.	Adequate scholarly sources with some variety; mostly relevant.	Limited, mixed-quality sources; gaps in relevance/ recency.	Few or inappropriate sources; reliance on non-scholarly material.
Analysis & Original Insight (20)	Insightful interpretation; connects evidence to claims; shows original thinking.	Sound analysis; connections usually clear.	Summarizes more than analyzes; weak connections.	Little/no analysis; claims unsupported.
Organization & Coherence (15)	Logical structure; strong paragraphs; smooth transitions.	Clear structure; paragraphs mostly focused; transitions adequate.	Inconsistent structure; paragraphs unfocused; weak transitions.	Disorganized; difficult to follow.
Use of Evidence (10)	Evidence integrated and contextualized; quotations and paraphrases advance argument.	Evidence generally well integrated with occasional dropped quotes.	Evidence often dropped or poorly contextualized.	Evidence misused, misrepresented, or largely absent.
Style & Academic Voice (10)	Concise, precise, and professional; tone suited to discipline.	Generally clear and appropriate; some wordiness or awkward phrasing.	Often informal or repetitive; frequent awkward sentences.	Inappropriate tone; unclear or confusing prose.
Mechanics (5)	Virtually error-free grammar, punctuation, and spelling.	Minor errors that don’t impede meaning.	Recurring errors that sometimes distract.	Frequent errors that impede comprehension.
Citations & Formatting (5)	Correct, consistent style (APA/ MLA/ Chicago); flawless references.	Few minor formatting errors.	Multiple style errors; incomplete references.	Incorrect or missing citations/ formatting.

EXAMPLE B

Criteria	Excellent	Good	Fair	Needs Improvement
Completeness	Covers all updates, blockers, next steps, and context thoroughly.	Covers most updates; only minor gaps.	Covers some updates; missing important details.	Incomplete; lacks essential information.
Clarity & Concision	Very clear, concise, and easy to understand.	Generally clear, with minor wordiness or redundancy.	Somewhat confusing or repetitive.	Often unclear; difficult to follow.
Analysis & Insight	Strong insights and clear connections between data, trends, and impact.	Good analysis; some connections could be more developed.	Mostly descriptive; limited explanation of significance.	Minimal or no analysis; little to no interpretation of data.
Organization	Logical, smooth flow with effective transitions and headings.	Organized with some lapses in flow or clarity.	Inconsistent structure; ideas feel scattered.	Disorganized; lacks clear sections or logical progression.
Use of Evidence	Evidence is specific, relevant, and well-integrated into the writing.	Evidence is present and mostly clear.	Evidence is incomplete or not fully connected to main points.	Evidence missing, misused, or irrelevant.
Professional Tone	Professional, precise, and appropriate for a workplace report.	Mostly professional; some awkward phrasing.	Tone inconsistent; sometimes informal.	Inappropriate or confusing tone.

EXAMPLE C

Criteria	Insightful	Thoughtful	Basic	Minimal
Personal Connection	Deep, meaningful connection between personal experience and topic.	Clear connection made; some depth shown.	Connection is surface-level or vague.	No clear connection to personal experience.
Reflection & Growth	Shows strong self-awareness and thoughtful growth.	Some self-awareness; growth is mentioned but not developed.	Limited reflection; growth unclear.	Little or no reflection or personal insight.
Use of Examples	Specific, vivid examples enrich the reflection.	Examples are relevant but not always detailed.	Examples are general or underdeveloped.	Examples missing or irrelevant.
Organization & Flow	Reflection flows naturally; ideas build on one another smoothly.	Generally clear; a few minor shifts in flow.	Reflection feels loosely organized; transitions weak.	No clear organization; hard to follow.
Voice & Style	Authentic, engaging voice; tone fits reflective writing.	Appropriate tone; may feel generic at times.	Tone inconsistent or sometimes flat.	Tone off or distracting; lacks reflective quality.

EXAMPLE D

Score	15	10	5	0
Thesis & Focus	Sharp, arguable thesis that shapes the whole paper.	Clear thesis; paper mostly sticks to the point.	Thesis is vague or only partly arguable; focus drifts often.	No real thesis or paper consistently strays off topic.
Argument Development	Persuasive, well-reasoned, and fully supported with depth.	Reasoning is sound, though some claims are less developed.	Arguments are simplistic.	Argument unclear, disorganized, or unsupported.
Counterarguments	Thoughtfully anticipates and refutes opposing views.	Mentions opposing views but addresses them briefly.	Opposing views are touched on but not explained well.	No attempt to consider or respond to opposing views.
Use of Evidence	Wide variety of credible sources woven smoothly into analysis.	Sources are generally solid and mostly relevant.	Limited or uneven source use; connections are weak.	Little to no evidence, or evidence irrelevant/ misused.
Structure & Flow	Logical progression; transitions guide the reader naturally.	Clear structure with some minor bumps in flow.	Some sections occasionally feel abrupt.	Disorganized and hard to follow; ideas scattered.