estimative-language

Rewrites and lints likelihood and confidence wording against ICD 203, PHIA, or IPCC standards.

4|1|Updated Jul 30, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/radarist/structured-analytic-skills --skill estimative-language-radarist
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: estimative-language
Source: https://github.com/radarist/structured-analytic-skills/tree/main/skills/estimative-language
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/radarist/structured-analytic-skills --skill estimative-language-radarist

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes scripts (resource) and references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Vague probability words like "possible" or "significant chance" are read as anything from 20% to 80% by different readers, and mixing confidence with likelihood in one sentence corrupts analytic assessments. This Skill converts numeric probabilities into calibrated terms from a declared standard and lints drafts for vague, hedged, or mixed-standard wording. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Probability-to-term conversion: Maps a numeric probability to the correct term in ODNI ICD 203, the UK PHIA Probability Yardstick, or the IPCC AR5 scale, handling shared boundaries, deliberate PHIA gaps, and nested IPCC bands. - Deterministic linting: The stdlib-only scripts/wep.py linter flags vague likelihood words, bare numbers without terms, numeric confidence, hedged terms, foreign-standard terms, and confidence-plus-likelihood sentences, with line:col findings and exit codes. - Confidence separation: Enforces the ICD 203 rule that confidence (high/moderate/low, with its sourcing basis) lives in its own sentence, never combined with a likelihood term. - Use Case: A board brief says "there is a significant chance the fab slips and we have high confidence it is likely." The Skill rewrites it as "There is a roughly even chance (45–55%) that the fab slips" plus a separate confidence sentence with its basis, and the linter confirms zero errors. ## Quick Start Use the estimative-language skill to rewrite my attached assessment using ICD 203 probability language and lint it for vague wording.

Frequently Asked Questions about estimative-language

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I convert a probability like 70% into ICD 203 estimative language?▼

Run python3 scripts/wep.py term --p 0.7 --standard icd203, which returns "likely (55-80%)" and suggests writing "likely (70 %)" so the number stays attached. The same command works for the PHIA and IPCC standards, reporting boundaries, gaps, and nested bands.

What does 'realistic possibility' mean in the UK PHIA Probability Yardstick?▼

In the PHIA yardstick, "realistic possibility" covers approximately 40% to under 50%. A 50% judgment falls in a deliberate gap between that term and "likely" (≈55–75%), so you state the number or move the judgment into a band rather than inventing a term.

How do I lint a brief for vague likelihood words before publishing?▼

Run python3 scripts/wep.py lint --file draft.md --standard icd203. It reports line:col findings for vague words (possible, may, significant chance), bare numbers, mixed confidence-likelihood sentences, and foreign-standard terms, exiting non-zero on any error.

Can I mix ICD 203 and PHIA terms in the same assessment?▼

No. Each document must declare one standard, and the linter raises a mixed-standards error when distinctive terms from two standards appear. Even within ICD 203, mixing its two synonym rows requires a disclaimer stating the terms indicate the same probability.

When should I not use estimative language for a probability?▼

Do not use it to score past forecasts against outcomes (use Brier score calibration) or to revise a probability after new evidence (use a Bayesian update first). It also should not paper over a missing basis: when no verifiable likelihood exists, abstain or escalate instead of writing "possible".