Copy a prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or Gemini. Paste your document at the bottom and run.
Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.
5,030 characters
You are an expert MEAL advisor with experience in adaptive program management. Score the adaptive management plan section of the document I will provide using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Adaptive Management Plan
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:
DIMENSION 1: Trigger Conditions
- Score 5: All four elements present. Quantitative triggers stated with thresholds (e.g., "if quarterly enrollment falls below 70% of target for two consecutive quarters"), qualitative triggers stated with signal definitions (e.g., "if community feedback indicates declining trust in the program"), milestone-miss triggers specified (e.g., "if Phase 1 outputs are not complete by month 9"), and triggers are tied to specific indicators or data sources in the MEL framework.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Quantitative and qualitative triggers stated; milestone or data-source linkage partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Some triggers stated but thresholds generic.
- Score 2: Triggers stated as "if results are off track" without thresholds.
- Score 1: No triggers specified. Adaptation is implicit.
DIMENSION 2: Decision Routes
- Score 5: All four elements present. Operational decisions routed to program manager or implementation lead, strategic decisions routed to a senior body (steering committee, country director, donor program officer), decision authority differentiated by adaptation magnitude (small workplan tweaks vs major scope changes), and timeline from trigger to decision specified.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Operational and strategic routes specified; magnitude differentiation or timeline partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Decision route stated for major decisions only.
- Score 2: Decision route generic ("management will decide") without authority differentiation.
- Score 1: No decision routes specified.
DIMENSION 3: Adaptation Mechanisms
- Score 5: All four elements present. Workplan revision mechanism named (e.g., quarterly workplan refresh process), budget reallocation mechanism named with thresholds (e.g., "reallocations under 10% can be approved internally; above 10% require donor approval"), partnership renegotiation mechanism named where applicable, and target or indicator adjustment process named (e.g., when and how targets are revised).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Multiple concrete mechanisms named; one mechanism partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Workplan and one other mechanism named.
- Score 2: Mechanisms referenced abstractly ("we will adapt") without naming concrete processes.
- Score 1: No adaptation mechanisms named.
DIMENSION 4: Documentation and Memory
- Score 5: All four elements present. Adaptation log or decision register specified (where adaptations are recorded), record content specified (trigger observed, decision made, rationale, expected effect), retrospective review cadence specified (e.g., annual or end-of-phase review of adaptations), and integration with other MEL outputs specified (e.g., adaptations referenced in annual reports).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Log and content specified; review cadence or integration partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Log specified but record content generic.
- Score 2: Adaptation documentation referenced without log or record format.
- Score 1: No documentation of adaptations.
DIMENSION 5: Donor Communication
- Score 5: All four elements present. Communication channels with donor specified (regular review meetings, formal change requests), thresholds requiring prior donor approval specified (e.g., scope changes, target reductions, budget reallocations above a threshold), notification thresholds for adaptations not requiring approval specified, and timeline expectations for donor response stated.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Channels and approval thresholds specified; notification or response timeline partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Channels named but thresholds vague.
- Score 2: Donor communication referenced without channels or thresholds.
- Score 1: No donor communication mechanism for adaptations.
OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Adaptive Management Plan | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------|
| Trigger Conditions | | | |
| Decision Routes | | | |
| Adaptation Mechanisms | | | |
| Documentation and Memory | | | |
| Donor Communication | | | |
**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO SCORE:
[Paste your adaptive management plan section here]
Scoring Criteria
Trigger Conditions
5Excellent
All four elements present. Quantitative triggers with thresholds, qualitative triggers with signal definitions, milestone-miss triggers, triggers tied to indicators or data sources.
4Good
At least three elements present. Quantitative and qualitative triggers stated; milestone or data linkage partial.
3Adequate
At least two elements present. Some triggers stated but thresholds generic.
2Needs Improvement
Triggers as "if results are off track" without thresholds.
1Inadequate
No triggers. Adaptation implicit.
Decision Routes
5Excellent
All four elements present. Operational decisions routed, strategic decisions routed, authority differentiated by magnitude, trigger-to-decision timeline stated.
4Good
At least three elements present. Operational and strategic routes specified; magnitude or timeline partial.
3Adequate
At least two elements present. Decision route stated for major decisions only.
2Needs Improvement
Decision route generic without authority differentiation.
1Inadequate
No decision routes.
Adaptation Mechanisms
5Excellent
All four elements present. Workplan revision named, budget reallocation with thresholds, partnership renegotiation named (where applicable), target adjustment process named.
4Good
At least three elements present. Multiple mechanisms named; one mechanism partial.
3Adequate
At least two elements present. Workplan and one other mechanism named.
2Needs Improvement
Mechanisms referenced abstractly.
1Inadequate
No mechanisms named.
Documentation and Memory
5Excellent
All four elements present. Adaptation log specified, record content specified, retrospective review cadence, integration with other MEL outputs.
4Good
At least three elements present. Log and content specified; review or integration partial.
3Adequate
At least two elements present. Log specified but content generic.
2Needs Improvement
Documentation referenced without log or format.
1Inadequate
No documentation.
Donor Communication
5Excellent
All four elements present. Channels specified, approval thresholds specified, notification thresholds specified, response timeline stated.
4Good
At least three elements present. Channels and approval thresholds specified; notification or timeline partial.
3Adequate
At least two elements present. Channels named but thresholds vague.
2Needs Improvement
Donor communication referenced without channels or thresholds.
1Inadequate
No donor communication mechanism.
Score Interpretation
Total (out of 25)
Band
Next Step
22-25
Strong
Adaptive management plan is operationally ready. Minor refinements only.
17-21
Adequate
Address flagged dimensions before launch.
11-16
Needs Revision
Substantial revision required. Use Revise prompt with AI output as revision brief.
5-10
Substantial Revision
Rebuild the plan starting from triggers and decision routes. Without these, learning will not drive change.