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:

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.
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.
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]
Generate a explanation for a provided causal fact. Cause: Otters enter their new habitat. Effect: Otters start looking for abalone for food. Conceptual explanation: 

[Ground truth Answer]
Abalone are one of the first food items taken by otters as they move into new habitat.

[Assistant's Response]
When otters enter a new habitat, they are faced with the challenge of finding suitable food sources to sustain themselves. As opportunistic feeders, otters are highly adaptable and will seek out available food that meets their nutritional needs. Abalone, a type of marine mollusk, is particularly appealing to otters because it is rich in nutrients and provides a substantial energy boost.

In their new environment, otters will explore the available resources and quickly identify abalone if it is present in significant numbers. Their natural foraging skills, including the use of their dexterous paws and sharp teeth, allow them to efficiently harvest these mollusks from rocks and other surfaces. This behavior is not only crucial for their survival but also contributes to the ecological balance of the habitat. By preying on abalone, otters help regulate the population of these mollusks, which can influence the overall health of the marine ecosystem.

Therefore, the entry of otters into a new habitat triggers their search for abalone as a vital food source, driven by their dietary needs and the availability of this nutritious prey in the environment.

[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: