System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Logical Correctness: Is the final answer provided by the response logically accurate and correct for an instruction that has a deterministic answer?
Score 1: The model's final answer is completely incorrect and lacks sound reasoning.
Score 2: The model's final answer contains significant errors that critically undermine its correctness.
Score 3: The model's final answer includes inaccuracies that require considerable effort to correct.
Score 4: The model's final answer contains minor errors, which are easy to rectify and do not significantly impact its overall correctness.
Score 5: The model's final answer is completely accurate and sound.
Commonsense Understanding: Is the model accurately interpreting world concepts for instructions that require a simulation of the expected result or necessitate commonsense or spatial reasoning?
Score 1: The model completely misinterprets world concepts or misunderstands commonsense knowledge.
Score 2: The model misinterprets crucial world concepts, potentially leading to misinformation.
Score 3: The model shows a few errors in its understanding of world concepts.
Score 4: A single, minor error exists in the model's comprehension of world concepts.
Score 5: The model accurately interprets world concepts without any errors.
Readability: Is the response structured to promote readability and coherence? Does the response exhibit excellent organization?
Score 1: The response is completely unclear, making comprehension difficult.
Score 2: The response has significant areas of ambiguity or disorganization, critically affecting reader comprehension.
Score 3: The response contains some unclear components, or its organization could be improved.
Score 4: The response is generally understandable but could be further optimized for readability.
Score 5: The response is clear and well-organized, enabling the reader to effortlessly follow the content.
[Instruction]
In the following chess position, find a checkmate-in-one move.\n1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 a6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bd3 h6 6. e4 dxe4 7. Bxe4 Nxe4 8. Nxe4 Bb4+ 9. c3 Ba5 10. Qa4+ Nc6 11. Ne5 Qd5 12. f3 O-O 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. Bf4 Ra7 15. Qb3 Qb5 16. Qxb5 cxb5 17. a4 bxa4 18. Rxa4 Bb6 19. Kf2 Bd7 20. Ke3 Bxa4 21. Ra1 Bc2 22. c4 Bxe4 23. fxe4 c5 24. d5 exd5 25. exd5 Re8+ 26. Kf3 Rae7 27. Rxa6 Bc7 28. Bd2 Re2 29. Bc3 R8e3+ 30. Kg4 Rxg2+ 31. Kf5

[Ground truth Answer]
Rg5#

[Assistant's Response]
In the given chess position, White can deliver checkmate in one move with **Ra8#**. The rook moves to a8, putting the black king in check, and there are no available moves for the black king to escape, resulting in checkmate.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: