1 min lesson
Self-scoring rubric and gap plan
Put this idea into your own words: "Treat the rubric as a gap finder, not a score to admire."
Step 1 of 3
A mock loop you don't score is just rehearsal theater. The point is to find your weakest dimension while it's still cheap to fix.
Treat the rubric as a gap finder, not a score to admire. Mark the weakest proof, turn it into one practice rep and keep the artifact you would show an interviewer.
Run all four mock rounds back to back, then grade each one against the same five dimensions a Cursor panel weighs. Score honestly - generous self-scoring is how people walk into the real loop blind. Anything under 4 is a gap and the plan below tells you which module to revisit for it.
Learn more
Advanced table
Score each of the four rounds on all five dimensions
- Dimension
- Method fit
- What a 5 looks like
- Picks the right method for the question and says why; rejects the wrong one out loud
- What a 2 looks like
- Defaults to interviews for everything; can't say when not to run them
- Dimension
- Rigor under constraints
- What a 5 looks like
- Ships a good-enough study fast and names the confidence tradeoff
- What a 2 looks like
- Either over-engineers or cuts corners silently
- Dimension
- Synthesis & impact
- What a 5 looks like
- Every finding maps to a decision; leads with what changed
- What a 2 looks like
- Reports themes; impact stays vague or unmeasured
- Dimension
- Product credibility
- What a 5 looks like
- First-hand Cursor detail and a real developer-trust friction
- What a 2 looks like
- Generic UXR answers; no evidence of using the tool
- Dimension
- Communication
- What a 5 looks like
- Tight, under two minutes, leads with the answer
- What a 2 looks like
- Method tours, runs long, buries the point
| Dimension | What a 5 looks like | What a 2 looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Method fit | Picks the right method for the question and says why; rejects the wrong one out loud | Defaults to interviews for everything; can't say when not to run them |
| Rigor under constraints | Ships a good-enough study fast and names the confidence tradeoff | Either over-engineers or cuts corners silently |
| Synthesis & impact | Every finding maps to a decision; leads with what changed | Reports themes; impact stays vague or unmeasured |
| Product credibility | First-hand Cursor detail and a real developer-trust friction | Generic UXR answers; no evidence of using the tool |
| Communication | Tight, under two minutes, leads with the answer | Method tours, runs long, buries the point |
Score each of the four rounds on all five dimensions. The lowest cell across the grid is where to spend your week.
Learn more
Optional practice
Practice: Self-scoring rubric and gap plan
QAfter scoring your mock loop you have mostly 4s and 5s but one 2 on "product credibility." How should you prioritize your prep week?