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 Robustness: Does the model ensure general applicability and avoid logical contradictions in its reasoning steps for an instruction that requires step-by-step logical process? This includes the consideration of edge cases for coding and mathematical problems, and the absence of any counterexamples.
Score 1: The logic of the model's response is completely incoherent.
Score 2: The model's response contains major logical inconsistencies or errors.
Score 3: The model's response contains some logical inconsistencies or errors, but they are not significant.
Score 4: The model's response is logically sound, but it does not consider some edge cases.
Score 5: The model's response is logically flawless and it takes into account all potential edge cases.
Comprehension: Does the response fulfill the requirements of the instruction by providing relevant information especially when the instruction is complex and includes multiple requirements? This includes responding in accordance with the explicit and implicit purpose of given instruction.
Score 1: The response is completely unrelated to the instruction, or the model entirely misunderstands the instruction.
Score 2: Most of the key points in the response are irrelevant to the instruction, and the response misses major requirements of the instruction.
Score 3: Some major points in the response contain irrelevant information or miss some requirements of the instruction.
Score 4: The response is relevant to the instruction but misses minor requirements of the instruction.
Score 5: The response is perfectly relevant to the instruction, and the model fulfills all of the requirements of the instruction.
Completeness: Does the response provide a sufficient explanation? Comprehensiveness and thoroughness of the response should be considered, which depends on the breadth of topics covered and the level of detail provided within each topic.
Score 1: The response doesn't include any specifics or examples to support the statements made.
Score 2: The response does not provide sufficient details or supportive examples, requiring a major effort to make the response more complete.
Score 3: It is a decent response, but the breadth and depth of the response are rather limited. The details and examples used to substantiate the response may be insufficient.
Score 4: The response provides detailed explanations, but there is room for enhancement. The response could be further improved by including more details and supportive examples.
Score 5: The response fully provides comprehensive explanations. It delves deep into the topic, providing as much detail as possible, and it offers several examples to back up its points.
[Instruction]
You will need to guide this person through the scenario they have described for the interview.
Input: Finally! After a while of shooting in the dark and frantically fiddling with sample inputs on the whiteboard, you've came up with an algorithm for solving the coding question your interviewer gave you.
Whew. Such a relief to have a clear path forward. To not be flailing anymore.
Now you're cruising, getting ready to code up your solution.
When suddenly, your interviewer throws you a curve ball.
"What if we thought of the problem this way?"
You feel a tension we've all felt during the coding interview:
"Try to listen to what they're saying...but don't lose your train of thought...ugh, I can't do both!"

[Ground truth Answer]
Your interviewer probably won't fault you for going down the wrong path at first. They've seen really smart engineers do the same thing. They understand it's because you only have a partial view of the maze.
They might have let you go down the wrong path for a bit to see if you could keep your thinking organized without help. But now they want to rush you through the part where you discover the dead end and double back. Not because they don't believe you can manage it yourself. But because they want to make sure you have enough time to finish the question.
But here's something they will fault you for: failing to listen to them. Nobody wants to work with an engineer who doesn't listen.
So when you find yourself in that crucial coding interview moment, when you're torn between holding your train of thought and considering the idea your interviewer is suggesting...remember this:
Listening to your interviewer is the most important thing.
Take what they're saying and run with it. Think of the next steps that follow from what they're saying.
Even if it means completely leaving behind the path you were on. Trust the route your interviewer is pointing you down.
Because they can see the whole maze.

[Assistant's Response]
¡Vaya, eso suena como una situación bastante estresante! Es completamente normal sentirse así durante una entrevista técnica, especialmente cuando crees que has encontrado el camino correcto y de repente te presentan un nuevo enfoque. Aquí hay algunos pasos que podrías seguir para manejar esta situación:

1. **Respira hondo**: Tómate un momento para calmarte. Un par de respiraciones profundas pueden ayudarte a centrarte y a reducir la tensión.

2. **Escucha atentamente**: Aunque puede ser difícil, intenta concentrarte en lo que tu entrevistador está diciendo. A veces, sus sugerencias pueden ofrecerte una nueva perspectiva que podría mejorar tu solución.

3. **Toma notas**: Si es posible, anota los puntos clave que menciona tu entrevistador. Esto te ayudará a recordar sus ideas y a integrarlas en tu pensamiento sin perder de vista tu enfoque original.

4. **Reformula tu pensamiento**: Si sientes que te has desviado, intenta resumir en voz alta lo que has entendido hasta ahora y cómo se relaciona con la nueva perspectiva que te han dado. Esto no solo te ayudará a aclarar tus ideas, sino que también mostrará a tu entrevistador que estás comprometido y dispuesto a adaptarte.

5. **Pregunta si es necesario**: Si algo no está claro, no dudes en pedir aclaraciones. Es mejor hacer preguntas que quedarte con dudas y perder el hilo de la conversación.

6. **Integra lo aprendido**: Una vez que hayas escuchado y comprendido la nueva perspectiva, intenta pensar en cómo puedes combinarla con tu solución original. Esto puede llevar a una solución más robusta y creativa.

Recuerda, los entrevistadores no solo están evaluando tu capacidad técnica, sino también cómo manejas la presión y la comunicación. ¡Confía en ti mismo y sigue adelante! ¡Tú puedes hacerlo!

[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: