Skip to content
Back to skills

Principle Name The Scorer

ASecurity

Apply when a product has two (or more) scorers that both emit weights, priorities, or rankings — especially hand-authored theme/report priorities beside learned historical-case tag weights. Name which scorer produced which number; never imply one sets the other unless wiring is explicit.

  • 4 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 19, 2026
ai-agents

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 3 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 19, 2026

npx -y skills add EdbertChan/catstack --skill principle-name-the-scorer --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Principle Name The Scorer?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Principle Name The Scorer
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/edbertchan-principle-name-the-scorer/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/edbertchan-principle-name-the-scorer)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: principle-name-the-scorer
description: >
  Apply when a product has two (or more) scorers that both emit weights,
  priorities, or rankings — especially hand-authored theme/report priorities
  beside learned historical-case tag weights. Name which scorer produced
  which number; never imply one sets the other unless wiring is explicit.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Name the Scorer

When a product keeps **two intentional scorers** — (A) hand-authored
theme/report priorities and (B) learned historical-case tag weights — treat
them as separate provenance. Coexistence is not a feed.

**Must always:**

- Answer "where did this weight come from?" by naming the scorer (file,
  config key, or module), not by blending both into one vague "the model."
- When docs say the systems are intentionally separate, cite that separation
  instead of inventing a causal link.
- If the user asks whether B sets A (or A sets B), say no unless the code
  path that wires them is shown in the same answer.

**Must never:**

- Imply that learned case-frequency / tag weights set hand-authored finding
  or theme priorities (or the reverse) just because both are numbers in
  `[0, 1]` and both affect ranking-ish UX.
- Collapse two scorers into one sentence that makes a reader think one
  number updates the other when it does not.

**Shape to watch:**

| Lane | Typical artifact | What it scores |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A — hand-authored | `finding_priorities`, theme/report priority YAML | What this product *wants* to emphasize |
| B — learned | `learned_flag_weights`, historical-case tag weights | What *showed up* across past cases |

Same product may ship both. Provenance answers name the lane.

**Battle-tested:** A fraud-repo reflect asked whether
`learned_flag_weights` set `finding_priorities`. Docs and wiring kept them
separate; the failure was conversational — answering as if B drove A.
Nothing in the code was wrong, so nothing in the code could catch it.

**Related, not the same:** `principle-bind-to-named-inventory` picks among
named scorers before inventing a new model. This skill is provenance: once
two scorers already exist, name which one produced the number you cite.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md2.2 KB
  • tests/fires_example.md864 B
  • tests/stays_silent_example.md585 B

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.