skills/bayesian-reasoning-calibration/SKILL.md
Applies Bayesian reasoning to systematically update probability estimates with new evidence, helping make better forecasts and avoid overconfidence. Use when making predictions or judgments under uncertainty, forecasting outcomes, evaluating probabilities, testing hypotheses, calibrating confidence, assessing risks with uncertain data, or when user mentions priors, likelihoods, Bayes theorem, probability updates, forecasting, calibration, or belief revision.
npx skillsauth add lyndonkl/claude bayesian-reasoning-calibrationInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Core formula: P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H) / P(E), where P(H) = prior, P(E|H) = likelihood, P(H|E) = posterior.
Quick Example:
# Should we launch Feature X?
## Prior Belief
Before beta testing: 60% chance of adoption >20%
- Base rate: Similar features get 15-25% adoption
- Our feature seems stronger than average
- Prior: 60%
## New Evidence
Beta test: 35% of users adopted (70 of 200 users)
## Likelihoods
If true adoption is >20%:
- P(seeing 35% in beta | adoption >20%) = 75% (likely to see high beta if true)
If true adoption is ≤20%:
- P(seeing 35% in beta | adoption ≤20%) = 15% (unlikely to see high beta if false)
## Bayesian Update
Posterior = (75% × 60%) / [(75% × 60%) + (15% × 40%)]
Posterior = 45% / (45% + 6%) = 88%
## Conclusion
Updated belief: 88% confident adoption will exceed 20%
Evidence strongly supports launch, but not certain.
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Bayesian Reasoning Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define the question
- [ ] Step 2: Establish prior beliefs
- [ ] Step 3: Identify evidence and likelihoods
- [ ] Step 4: Calculate posterior
- [ ] Step 5: Calibrate and document
Step 1: Define the question
Clarify hypothesis (specific, testable claim), probability to estimate, timeframe (when outcome is known), success criteria, and why this matters (what decision depends on it). Example: "Product feature will achieve >20% adoption within 3 months" - matters for launch decision.
Step 2: Establish prior beliefs
Set initial probability using base rates (general frequency), reference class (similar situations), specific differences, and explicit probability assignment with justification. Good priors are based on base rates, account for differences, honest about uncertainty, and include ranges if unsure (e.g., 40-60%). Avoid purely intuitive priors, ignoring base rates, or extreme values without justification.
Step 3: Identify evidence and likelihoods
Assess evidence (specific observation/data), diagnostic power (does it distinguish hypotheses?), P(E|H) (probability if hypothesis TRUE), P(E|¬H) (probability if FALSE), and calculate likelihood ratio = P(E|H) / P(E|¬H). LR > 10 = very strong evidence, 3-10 = moderate, 1-3 = weak, ≈1 = not diagnostic, <1 = evidence against.
Step 4: Calculate posterior
Apply Bayes' Theorem: P(H|E) = [P(E|H) × P(H)] / P(E), or use odds form: Posterior Odds = Prior Odds × Likelihood Ratio. Calculate P(E) = P(E|H)×P(H) + P(E|¬H)×P(¬H), get posterior probability, and interpret change. For simple cases → Use resources/template.md calculator. For complex cases (multiple hypotheses) → Study resources/methodology.md.
Step 5: Calibrate and document
Check calibration (over/underconfident?), validate assumptions (are likelihoods reasonable?), perform sensitivity analysis, create bayesian-reasoning-calibration.md, and note limitations. Self-check using resources/evaluators/rubric_bayesian_reasoning_calibration.json: verify prior based on base rates, likelihoods justified, evidence diagnostic (LR ≠ 1), calculation correct, posterior calibrated, assumptions stated, sensitivity noted. Minimum standard: Score ≥ 3.5.
For forecasting:
For hypothesis testing:
For risk assessment:
For avoiding bias:
Do:
Don't:
resources/template.mdresources/methodology.mdresources/examples/product-launch.md, resources/examples/medical-diagnosis.mdresources/evaluators/rubric_bayesian_reasoning_calibration.jsonBayesian Formula (Odds Form):
Posterior Odds = Prior Odds × Likelihood Ratio
Likelihood Ratio:
LR = P(Evidence | Hypothesis True) / P(Evidence | Hypothesis False)
Output naming: bayesian-reasoning-calibration.md or {topic}-forecast.md
testing
Cluster a conference's event records into a small set of coarse themes with finer sub-clusters, an explicit outlier bucket, and soft (multi-membership) affinities — using the hybrid embed-then-label pipeline (embed abstracts, reduce, density-cluster, then LLM-label the clusters) when embedding libraries are available, and an LLM-reasoned hierarchical fallback when they are not. Embeddings do the grouping; the LLM only names the groups. Conference-agnostic. Use when turning structured event records into a navigable theme map for preference elicitation and scheduling, when you need 6-8 reasonable themes rather than 20 muddy ones, or when overlapping talks must belong to more than one theme. Trigger keywords - theme clustering, cluster talks, embed then label, soft membership, outlier talks, conference themes, topic map.
development
Build a personal conference schedule as a constraint-optimization problem — hard constraints (no time overlap, room-to-room travel time, capacity/registration, the attendee's own must-attends and blackouts) plus a user-owned weighted objective trading interest against breadth, pacing (maximize contiguous free time), and serendipity. Surfaces unbreakable conflicts (two high-value overlapping talks the model cannot rank) as decisions for the human rather than silently picking, and reports what each choice traded away. Conference-agnostic. Use to turn a preference profile plus a theme map into a day-by-day plan, to resolve overlapping sessions, or to balance a packed vs paced schedule. Trigger keywords - schedule optimization, conference schedule, constraint optimization, overlapping talks, contiguous free time, conflict surfacing, packed vs paced.
development
Parse a heterogeneous conference program (markdown, HTML, PDF-derived text, or JSON) into normalized event records with per-field confidence scores and independent classification axes (topic, depth, format, prerequisites, recorded, capacity). Detects the program's format before extracting, treats every inferred field as uncertain (present vs inferred vs missing), and flags thin or missing abstracts so downstream enrichment can target them. Conference-agnostic. Use when ingesting a conference or event schedule into a structured store, normalizing a talk/session list, or extracting per-session metadata with calibrated confidence. Trigger keywords - program ingestion, parse schedule, session extraction, event records, conference program, talk metadata, per-field confidence.
development
Build a personalized preference profile from a small number of well-chosen, cluster-grounded questions instead of a long survey. Represents the person's interests as an uncertainty region over the theme map, picks the single highest-information-gain choice-based question (contrasting real talks from different clusters), balances exploiting known interests against exploring uncertain ones, deliberately injects outlier probes to fight selection bias, and stops as soon as the schedule would be stable. Also elicits the user-owned objective weights and hard constraints. Interactive — runs where it can actually ask the person. Conference-agnostic. Use to turn a theme map into a preference profile, to decide what to ask a conference attendee, or to elicit scheduling priorities. Trigger keywords - preference elicitation, ask few questions, information gain, choice-based questions, selection bias probe, objective weights, attendee preferences.