Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Strategy for small-N complete pairwise comparison using Bradley-Terry, Thurstone, AHP, and Borda methods to produce calibrated rankings.
.claude/skills/yogsoth-ai-deliberative-calibration/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -18% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -1% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 53% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -2% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -41% | 0% |
Produce a fully calibrated ranking when the candidate set is small enough (5-15 items) to allow complete or near-complete pairwise comparison. Leverages parametric models (Bradley-Terry, Thurstone) and structured weighting (AHP) to extract maximum information from each comparison.
| Resource | Allocation | |----------|-----------| | Comparisons | N(N-1)/2 (complete) or ≥ N×log(N) (near-complete) | | Iterations | 2-4 rounds (initial + consistency repair) | | Convergence target | CR < 0.1, rating stability ≥ 95% |
yamlcandidates: [] # list of items being ranked comparison_matrix: {} # pair → {winner, confidence, reasoning} ratings: {} # candidate → score method: "" # bradley-terry | thurstone | ahp | borda iteration: 0 convergence: {stable: false, score: 0.0} consistency: {cr: null, cycles: []}
yamlranking: - {rank: 1, candidate: "...", score: 0.95, ci: [0.91, 0.99]} - {rank: 2, candidate: "...", score: 0.82, ci: [0.77, 0.87]} method: bradley-terry consistency_ratio: 0.04 total_comparisons: 28 convergence_iterations: 3
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | adaptive-pair-selection | Iteratively select maximally informative pairs, execute comparisons, update ratings, and check convergence until ranking stabilizes. | | consistency-audit-loop | Detect preference cycles, localize inconsistent judgments, request corrections, and recompute ratings until consistency threshold is met. |
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | ranking-synthesis | Produce the final ranking artifact from converged ratings and consistency report. |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-02 | fail→pass | 22,772 | 16,929 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,688 | 3,859 | -18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 25,721 | 21,614 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,482 | 5,407 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 12,746 | 18,003 | +41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,649 | 4,058 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 8,963 | 5,694 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,458 | 1,689 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 7,679 | 4,233 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,236 | 1,330 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 12,980 | 8,479 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,196 | 2,144 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 8,173 | 5,824 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,376 | 1,775 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 11,493 | 6,390 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,885 | 1,915 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 7,457 | 3,171 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,187 | 1,266 | +7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 11,720 | 2,757 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,411 | 1,175 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 12,333 | 3,247 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,003 | 1,254 | -37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 11,174 | 2,177 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,710 | 1,021 | -40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 11,549 | 2,274 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,848 | 1,090 | -41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 15,637 | 2,146 | -86% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,391 | 1,029 | -57% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 8,453 | 5,460 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,468 | 1,616 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 18,204 | 10,621 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,127 | 2,518 | -19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 5,075 | 1,896 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 880 | 1,035 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 9,658 | 2,071 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,303 | 1,124 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 9,246 | 4,158 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,309 | 1,435 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 13,478 | 6,749 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,281 | 1,968 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 13,715 | 11,187 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,418 | 2,639 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 11,090 | 4,883 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,612 | 1,510 | -6% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +23 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.