calibrate

Measures a six-lens code review panel's catch rate and false-positive rate against fixtures with planted defects.

Updated Aug 25, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/AiFirstDevelopment/quorum --skill calibrate-aifirstdevelopment
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: calibrate
Source: https://github.com/AiFirstDevelopment/quorum/tree/main/plugins/quorum/skills/calibrate
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/AiFirstDevelopment/quorum --skill calibrate-aifirstdevelopment

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? A multi-lens AI review panel cannot judge its own quality from production records, since accepted and rejected counts measure adjudications rather than actual defects. This Skill evaluates the panel against fixtures whose defects are known in advance, producing honest catch-rate and false-positive measurements per lens. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Fixture-based evaluation: Runs the six review lenses against calibration cases with planted defects declared in manifests, then scores which defects each lens caught. - False-positive measurement on clean controls: Counts findings at minor severity or above only on control cases where nothing was planted, keeping the metric falsifiable. - Honest reporting discipline: Prints unmatched findings without judging them, exempts lenses via declared notControlFor rules, and refuses to be wired into CI or test suites. - Use Case: After changing a lens remit or swapping reviewer models, run the calibration to decide whether the six-lens panel still earns its cost before trusting it on production diffs. ## Quick Start Ask the AI to run the calibrate skill to evaluate the review panel against the calibration fixtures and report the worst catch rate and any false positives.

Frequently Asked Questions about calibrate

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I measure whether an AI code review panel actually catches defects?▼

Run the panel against fixtures whose defects are planted and declared in manifests, then score how many each lens found. Catch rate and false positives on clean controls give falsifiable numbers that production adjudication counts cannot provide.

How to evaluate false positives in automated code review?▼

Count findings at minor severity or above only on clean control fixtures where nothing was planted. On cases carrying planted defects, unmatched findings are printed but never judged, since the fixture cannot distinguish a false positive from a real unplanted defect.

Can calibration runs be added to a CI pipeline or test suite?▼

No. Calibration costs real model time and its output legitimately varies between runs, so wiring it into CI would either make the suite flaky or force lowered thresholds that silently destroy the measurement. It is a human-invoked evaluation, not a test.

What makes a good planted defect manifest for review calibration?▼

Each planted defect needs an id, lens, file, line range, and match strings specific enough that a wrong finding cannot satisfy them but general enough that a correct finding does. Vague declarations should be tightened in the manifest rather than loosening the matcher.

What are the limitations of fixture-based review panel evaluation?▼

Samples are tiny, fixtures are small and self-contained unlike production diffs, and planted defects only cover what someone thought to plant. Lenses like behavior that operate running software may be unrunnable on library fixtures and go unmeasured.