appropriateness-bounding
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Establish acceptability standards through RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method or Consensus Conference protocols.
In this repository119 other files it gives its agents.
- adaptive-pair-selectionSkill
- adversarial-debate-protocolSkill
- advocate-constructionSkill
- aggregation-methodSkill
- alternative-scoringSkill
- argument-crystallizationSkill
- argument-extractionSkill
- assumption-challengeSkill
- assumption-excavationSkill
- assumption-extractionSkill
- ballot-collectionSkill
- best-option-selectionSkill
- bottleneck-identificationSkill
- category-sortingSkill
- cluster-analysisSkill
- coherence-diagnosisSkill
- collective-adjudicationSkill
- comparative-feasibility-rankingSkill
- comparison-executorSkill
- conclusion-sensitivitySkill
- conjunctive-filterSkill
- consensus-classificationSkill
- consensus-measurementSkill
- consensus-synthesisSkill
- consistency-audit-loopSkill
- constraint-classificationSkill
- constraint-drillingSkill
- constraint-identificationSkill
- constraint-identification-sopSkill
- convergence-checkSkill
- convergence-distillationSkill
- counter-thesis-constructionSkill
- coverage-scoringSkill
- criteria-interrogationSkill
- criterion-definitionSkill
- critic-attackSkill
- cycle-detectionSkill
- deliberative-calibrationSkill
- dimension-assessmentSkill
- disagreement-cartographySkill
- disagreement-mappingSkill
- disagreement-visualizationSkill
- diversity-maximizationSkill
- dominance-checkSkill
- dynamic-trackingSkill
- efficient-explorationSkill
- feasibility-assessmentSkill
- feasibility-synthesisSkill
- feedback-distributionSkill
- full-rankingSkill
- futures-calibrationSkill
- gate-criteria-definitionSkill
- gate-judgmentSkill
- inconsistency-localizationSkill
- iterative-convergence-roundSkill
- judge-verdictSkill
- judgment-collectionSkill
- maturation-pathway-designSkill
- maturity-diagnosisSkill
- method-sensitivity-reportSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Files
Appropriateness Bounding
Purpose: Determine what is appropriate, acceptable, or indicated for a given context. Uses the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (rating + discussion + re-rating) or Consensus Conference (citizen jury) format to establish boundaries of acceptability.
When to use:
- Medical guideline development (appropriate indications)
- Regulatory standard setting
- Establishing acceptable thresholds for action
- Any question of the form "is X appropriate when Y?"
Budget
| Parameter | Constraint |
| Rounds | 2 (rate → discuss → re-rate) |
| Perspectives | ≥4 (ideally 7–15 for RAND/UCLA) |
| Rating scale | 1–9 (inappropriate to appropriate) |
| Agreement threshold | Median ≥7 without disagreement |
State Ledger
| Key | Type | Description |
| indications | array | List of scenarios to rate |
| perspectives | array | Panel member perspectives |
| round_1_ratings | array | Initial ratings per indication |
| discussion_notes | string | Key points from discussion |
| round_2_ratings | array | Post-discussion ratings |
| classifications | object | Appropriate/uncertain/inappropriate per item |
Available Tactics
- iterative-convergence-round — Two-round rate-discuss-rerate cycle
- threshold-calibration — Determine where appropriateness boundaries fall
Available SOPs
- judgment-collection
- feedback-distribution
- consensus-measurement
- round-decision
- threshold-sweep
- consensus-classification
- consensus-synthesis
Execution Guidance
- Define indications/scenarios clearly (clinical scenarios, use cases)
- Collect Round 1 ratings (1–9 scale) with brief rationale
- Distribute feedback showing distribution of ratings
- Facilitate structured discussion of disagreements
- Collect Round 2 ratings
- Classify each indication: appropriate (median 7–9), uncertain (4–6), inappropriate (1–3)
- Flag items with disagreement (where panel lacks agreement despite median)
Output Format
classifications:
appropriate: [{indication, median, agreement_level}, ...]
uncertain: [{indication, median, agreement_level}, ...]
inappropriate: [{indication, median, agreement_level}, ...]
disagreement_items: [{indication, reason}, ...]
panel_size: <int>
method: RAND/UCLA | Consensus ConferenceDoes it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

