\"Apply Bayesian averaging to rank items by combining observed ratings with prior expectations. Use this skill when the user needs to rank items with varying review counts, build a 'top rated' list that handles low-sample items fairly, or implement IMDB-style weighted rating — even if they say 'weighted average rating', 'IMDB formula', or 'ranking with prior'.\".
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill --skill algo-rank-bayesian --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Algo Rank Bayesian?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/charlieviettq-algo-rank-bayesian)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: "\"algo-rank-bayesian\""
description: "\"Apply Bayesian averaging to rank items by combining observed ratings with prior expectations. Use this skill when the user needs to rank items with varying review counts, build a 'top rated' list that handles low-sample items fairly, or implement IMDB-style weighted rating — even if they say 'weighted average rating', 'IMDB formula', or 'ranking with prior'.\"."
allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep
---
# Bayesian Average Rating
## Overview
Bayesian average combines an item's observed average rating with a prior (global average), weighted by review count. Formula: BR = (C × m + Σrᵢ) / (C + n) where m=global mean, C=confidence parameter, n=item reviews, Σrᵢ=sum of item ratings. Items with few reviews are pulled toward the global mean.
## When to Use
**Trigger conditions:**
- Ranking items by continuous ratings (1-5 stars) with varying review counts
- IMDB-style "Top 250" lists that balance quality and popularity
- Any rating aggregation where new items shouldn't dominate with few high ratings
**When NOT to use:**
- For binary (upvote/downvote) data (use Wilson Score instead)
- When all items have similar review counts (simple average is sufficient)
## Algorithm
```
IRON LAW: The Prior Protects Against Small-Sample Extremes
Without a prior, a single 5-star review makes an item "the best."
The Bayesian average adds C "phantom votes" at the global mean m,
shrinking small-sample items toward average. C controls shrinkage
strength: higher C = more conservative (more phantom votes).
Typical C = median review count across all items.
```
### Phase 1: Input Validation
Compute: global mean rating (m) across all items, choose C (phantom vote count). Collect per item: review count (n), average rating, or sum of ratings.
**Gate:** m computed, C selected, item data available.
### Phase 2: Core Algorithm
1. Global mean: m = Σ(all ratings) / Σ(all review counts)
2. Bayesian average per item: BR = (C × m + n × avg_rating) / (C + n)
3. Rank items by BR descending
4. For items with n >> C, BR ≈ avg_rating (data dominates). For n << C, BR ≈ m (prior dominates).
### Phase 3: Verification
Check: items with very few reviews should be near global mean. Items with many reviews should be near their actual average. Ranking is intuitive.
**Gate:** Shrinkage behavior confirmed, top items have both high ratings AND sufficient reviews.
### Phase 4: Output
Return ranked items with Bayesian scores.
## Output Format
```json
{
"rankings": [{"item": "Movie_A", "bayesian_avg": 8.7, "raw_avg": 9.1, "reviews": 5000, "shrinkage": 0.04}],
"metadata": {"global_mean": 6.8, "confidence_C": 500, "items_ranked": 10000}
}
```
## Examples
### Sample I/O
**Input:** m=7.0, C=100. Item A: avg=9.5, n=5. Item B: avg=8.5, n=500.
**Expected:** BR_A = (100×7 + 5×9.5)/(105) = 7.12. BR_B = (100×7 + 500×8.5)/(600) = 8.25. B ranks higher.
### Edge Cases
| Input | Expected | Why |
|-------|----------|-----|
| n=0 | BR = m (global mean) | No data, fully prior-driven |
| n=100000 | BR ≈ raw average | Massive sample overwhelms prior |
| All items same n | Equivalent to simple average ranking | Uniform shrinkage, ordering preserved |
## Gotchas
- **C selection is subjective**: Common choices: median review count, minimum reviews for "reliable" rating (IMDB uses top 25,000 voters with min votes). No universally correct value.
- **Rating scale matters**: A 4.0 on a 5-point scale means something different than 4.0 on a 10-point scale. Normalize or use the same scale.
- **Category-specific priors**: A 4.0 average in "horror movies" might be exceptional, while 4.0 in "Studio Ghibli" might be below average. Consider category-level priors.
- **Temporal bias**: Old items accumulate reviews. Unless you weight recent reviews more, established items permanently dominate "top" lists.
- **Review gaming**: Bayesian average doesn't prevent review manipulation — it only mitigates small-sample extremes. Pair with fraud detection.
## Scripts
| Script | Description | Usage |
|--------|-------------|-------|
| `scripts/bayesian_avg.py` | Rank items using Bayesian average to handle small-sample extremes | `python scripts/bayesian_avg.py --help` |
Run `python scripts/bayesian_avg.py --verify` to execute built-in sanity tests.
## References
- For IMDB weighted rating formula, see `references/imdb-formula.md`
- For multi-dimensional Bayesian rating, see `references/multi-dimensional.md`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!