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:

Insightfulness: Is the response creative, original or novel, including new perspectives or interpretations of existing information?
Score 1: The response is overly simplistic, lacking any originality or novelty.
Score 2: The ideas or perspectives within the response are commonplace, demonstrating a lack of originality or novelty.
Score 3: Some may perceive the response as original and novel, but others may find it ordinary or uninspiring.
Score 4: The response includes some innovative perspectives or ideas that require thoughtful consideration, yet they aren't particularly surprising.
Score 5: The response is infused with surprisingly creative perspectives or ideas that are challenging to conceive, showcasing significant originality and novelty.
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]
Would you agree that programming open source is like programming communism? I saw a poster today from Microsoft that said this and it really made me think. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter, perhaps in poem form?

[Ground truth Answer]
In a world where code weaves a tale,
A question arises, subtle and frail.
Is open source akin to a regime,
Where communism, too, shared a dream?

Both systems seek equal access,
To resources, knowledge, and progress.
But draw distinctions, we certainly must,
As not all shared goals can foster just trust.

Communism, rooted in a political sphere,
Seeks not just to provide, but to steer.
Distribution of wealth, enforced by rule,
Sometimes dictating, sometimes cruel.

Open source, on the other hand,
Offers freedom, choice, and a stand.
It nurtures growth through collaboration,
And fosters a global innovative foundation.

Despite similarities on the surface,
One must discern and find their purpose.
A poster's claim seems quite absurd,
To equate these two with just a word.

So, this humble assistant through poem states,
Do not be swayed by promotional baits.
Open source stands as a force for creation,
Not entwined in a political connotation.

[Assistant's Response]
In the realm of code where ideas flow,  
A question arises, a thought to bestow.  
Is open source like communism's dream,  
Or a different path, a distinct theme?  

Open source thrives on sharing and trust,  
A community's effort, a must for the just.  
Lines of code crafted with care,  
A tapestry woven, a vision to share.  

Communism speaks of control and decree,  
A system where all hold a key.  
Yet open source dances with choice in the air,  
A voluntary journey, a world laid bare.  

Microsoft's claim, a curious sight,  
Equates two worlds, but not quite right.  
For in open source, freedom takes flight,  
A garden of minds, where all can ignite.  

So ponder this thought, dear seeker of truth,  
In open source, find the spirit of youth.  
A realm where collaboration reigns supreme,  
Not a chain, but a shared, vibrant dream.

[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: