Progressive Politics

Some of those criterion are odd, and yeah, most don't even apply to STAR, because it's Cardinal and not Ordinal.

Bit it's also important to know why and how the criterion are applied.

Like being cloneproof,

This wiki, (which is better for election specific stuff) says this;

STAR voting

STAR voting consists of an automatic runoff between the two candidates with the highest rated scores. Suppose we use the rated definition of cloning, where a candidate's clones have scores nearly identical to the candidate who was cloned. If the winner in STAR voting differs from the Range voting winner, then cloning the latter will make him or her win. Therefore, STAR voting has a teaming incentive.

A bit later is says this;

Notes

Clone-negative methods can be argued to be better than clone-positive methods, because in a clone-negative methods, the clones may be more likely to drop out of the election, giving voters more of a say on the remaining candidates, whereas with clone-positive methods, the election result can come down primarily to which candidates run more clones of themselves. Such behavior has been observed with the Borda count.[6]

It's a weakness, and it's important to know about, but it's not election breaking, it just renders the automatic runoff meaningless. Except it doesn't because people still care about the who, even if the platforms are identical.

An election breaking criterion to fail would be Monotonicity. STAR satisfies it.