score-intuition-density
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/score-intuition-densityQuantify intuition density using eight measurable signals.
- Enriches seed frontmatter for the substacker Librarian pipeline.
- Depends on shared-context/style-guide.md for em-dash reframe patterns.
- Calculates a weighted sum of eight concrete detection rules.
- Outputs a numeric score and a list of triggered signals.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/score-intuition-densityView on GitHub ↗
---
name: score-intuition-density
description: Computes a 0-10 intuition-density score for a seed body using 8 concrete measurable signals — analogy presence, concrete worked example, counterfactual offered, reframe against default, biology-to-AI transfer, question posed, calibrated hedge, math-to-metaphor handoff. Emits both the numeric score and the list of triggered signals for auditability. Use after topic tagging to enrich seed frontmatter in the substacker Librarian pipeline. Trigger keywords: intuition density, score, signals, analogy count, worked example, density proxy.
---
# Score Intuition Density
## Table of Contents
- [The 8 signals](#the-8-signals)
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [Worked example](#worked-example)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
**Related skills:** Called by `ingest-inbox-item` step 3. Reads `shared-context/style-guide.md` (for em-dash reframe pattern). The score enters the seed's frontmatter as `intuition_density.score`; the triggered signals are recorded as `intuition_density.signals`.
## The 8 signals
Each signal is detected by a concrete pattern (not "LLM vibes"). Weighted sum, clamped to [0, 10].
| Signal | Detection rule | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| `analogy_present` | explicit "like", "think of it as", "is secretly", "is to X what Y is to Z", em-dash reframe | 2 |
| `concrete_worked_example` | numbered or named instance with specific numbers / entities (names a system, shows arithmetic) | 2 |
| `counterfactual_offered` | "if it were X instead", "unlike Y", "this is why Z doesn't work" | 1 |
| `reframe_against_default` | "not X — Y", "people say X but", em-dash reframe | 1 |
| `biology_to_ai` | biology vocabulary (antibody, neuron, immune, evolution, synapse, crypt, DNA) in an AI context | 1 |
| `question_posed` | interrogative sentence that drives the piece forward | 1 |
| `hedge_calibrated` | "I do not know", "I am not sure", explicit uncertainty with scope | 1 |
| `math_to_metaphor_handoff` | equation or formal statement followed by prose restatement | 1 |
**Max weight sum**: 10. **Min**: 0.
## Workflow
```
Score one seed body:
- [ ] Step 1: Run each of the 8 detection patterns over body + title
- [ ] Step 2: For each signal that fires, record in signals list
- [ ] Step 3: Sum weights; clamp to [0, 10]
- [ ] Step 4: Return {score: int, signals: [str]}
```
### Detection details
- `analogy_present`: regex for the markers above, AND the analogy must map source → target (a simile that names only one side doesn't count).
- `concrete_worked_example`: presence of numbers + a named entity. "3B params", "$11.35", "fifty queries" — yes. "a model" — no.
- `counterfactual_offered`: look for the 3 phrase patterns above, OR an explicit if-not construction.
- `reframe_against_default`: em-dash reframe pattern (`X — actually Y`) or explicit "not X / rather Y".
- `biology_to_ai`: biology vocabulary present AND the essay is an AI/ML context (inferred from body topic tags if available).
- `question_posed`: ?-terminated sentence that is not rhetorical filler. Excludes questions in a quoted Q&A format.
- `hedge_calibrated`: "I do not know" (full sentence, not "I don't know what to order for dinner"), "I am not claiming", "I can't prove", specific-scope hedges ("on n=1", "in the three teams I've tested").
- `math_to_metaphor_handoff`: inline math/equation/formal statement (LaTeX or prose-math) followed within 2 sentences by a prose restatement.
## Worked example
**Input body** (dropout-as-ensemble):
> had a thought while running — dropout is secretly an ensemble method. each forward pass is a different sub-network. so at test time when you turn dropout off and scale, you're averaging predictions across exponentially many thinned networks. this is why it generalizes. not "regularization" in the L2 sense. more like bagging.
> reminds me of how the immune system doesn't pick one antibody — it runs a population and lets the best ones dominate. dropout is antibody diversity for weights.
**Detection run**:
- `analogy_present` — fires (`dropout is antibody diversity for weights`). +2
- `concrete_worked_example` — fires (`each forward pass is a different sub-network`, specific mechanism). +2
- `counterfactual_offered` — fires (`not "regularization" in the L2 sense`). +1
- `reframe_against_default` — fires (`more like bagging`, reframe against "regularization"). +1
- `biology_to_ai` — fires (immune system / antibody). +1
- `question_posed` — no.
- `hedge_calibrated` — no.
- `math_to_metaphor_handoff` — no.
**Output**: `{score: 7, signals: [analogy_present, concrete_worked_example, counterfactual_offered, reframe_against_default, biology_to_ai]}`.
## Guardrails
1. Signals must be detectable by regex/substring heuristics — never "LLM vibes." Every signal has a concrete pattern.
2. Score is meaningful for ranking, not absolute truth. 3 vs. 4 is noise; 3 vs. 8 is real signal.
3. Do not penalize for length. A 100-word note can score 8.
4. Do not score link-captures with `low_commentary: true` above 3 (capped by caller).
5. Never use the score to auto-kill or auto-promote a seed. The writer decides.
6. Preserve the signals list. The score without the signals is unauditable.
## Quick reference
- 8 signals. Max weight 10. Output: `{score, signals}`.
- Deterministic: same body → same score + signals.
- Runs after tagging, before dedupe.
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".