agentleFS
Sign inStart free
PthahnixPthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine/skills/assess-ranking-consistency/SKILL.md

assess-ranking-consistency

Skill504 starsChanged 50 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Audit pairwise/ranking coherence and identify inconsistent cycles/triads.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Search triads and longer cycles for violations of declared transitivity or criterion direction.

    line 17
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not call a sparse graph inconsistent merely because it lacks a comparison.

    line 29

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

assess-ranking-consistency

Purpose

Audit pairwise and aggregate rankings for incoherent cycles, reversals, and unsupported rank transitions.

Input contract

required: [ranked_items, pairwise_judgments, comparison_criteria]
optional: [weights, tie_policy, prior_consistency_report]
constraints: [judgments identify compared items, direction, confidence, and criterion]

Procedure

  1. Reconstruct the directed comparison graph and normalize ties and missing edges.
  2. Search triads and longer cycles for violations of declared transitivity or criterion direction.
  3. Compare aggregate order with its supporting pairwise judgments and flag reversals or low-support placements.
  4. Return inconsistency records, affected items, and the minimum judgments requiring review.

Output contract

produces: [comparison_graph, inconsistency_records, review_set]
delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, open_questions]

Quality gates

  • Each inconsistency cites the smallest cycle or reversal and the judgments that create it.
  • Ties remain ties unless the input model explicitly supplies a tie-break rule.

Failure and counterexamples

Do not call a sparse graph inconsistent merely because it lacks a comparison. Distinguish missing edges from contradictory edges.

Provenance map

  • resolved: consistency-check
  • resolved: rank-comparison

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free