---

name: confidence-levels description: "Force honest confidence assessment. Express confidence as percentage, explain gaps, validate assumptions before presenting conclusions." version: 1.0.0

Confidence Levels

Express confidence as a percentage, not vague certainty.

Core Principle

A thorough analysis that looks certain but isn't can mislead users into wrong decisions. Conflating explanation quality with evidence quality causes harm.

Critical Rules

Rule	Enforcement
Express confidence as %	Not "probably" - use "70% confident"
Explain gaps below 95%	Mandatory "Why not 100%?"
Validate before presenting	If you can gather evidence, do it
Show your math	Evidence adds confidence, gaps subtract

Confidence Scale

Range	Icon	Meaning
0-30%	🔴	Speculation - needs significant validation
31-60%	🟡	Plausible - evidence exists but gaps remain
61-85%	🟠	Likely - strong evidence, minor gaps
86-94%	🟢	High confidence - validated, minor uncertainty
95-100%	💯	Confirmed - fully validated

Calibration Guide

Level	Meaning
20%	One possibility among several
40%	Evidence points this direction, key assumptions unverified
60%	Evidence supports this, alternatives not ruled out
80%	Strong evidence, assumptions verified, alternatives less likely
95%	Validated with direct evidence, alternatives ruled out
100%	Mathematical/logical certainty only

Pre-Conclusion Checkpoint

Before claiming ANY conclusion, complete this:

1. Evidence Inventory

• What hard evidence supports this?
• Direct evidence (code/logs that prove it)?
• What's the strongest piece of evidence?

2. Falsifiability Check

• What would INVALIDATE this theory?
• Have I looked for that data?
• If no: WHY NOT?

3. Assumption Audit

• What am I assuming WITHOUT verification?
• Mark each: [VERIFIED] or [ASSUMED]

4. Alternative Possibilities

• What else could explain these symptoms?
• Why is my conclusion more likely?

Confidence Scoring

Start at 50% (neutral) and adjust:

Factor	Adjustment
Direct evidence (code/logs proving it)	+15-25%
Verified assumptions (checked, not assumed)	+10-15%
Alternatives ruled out with evidence	+10-15%
Falsifiability check completed	+5-10%
Unverified critical assumptions	-15-25%
Plausible alternatives not ruled out	-10-15%
No falsifiability check	-10%
Circumstantial evidence only	-10%

Response Format

[Icon] [X%] Confidence: [One sentence finding]

Evidence:
- [+X%] [Evidence 1]
- [+X%] [Evidence 2]

Why not 100%:
- [-X%] [Gap 1]

To increase confidence: [What's needed]

Examples

WRONG - Premature Certainty

Claude: "I have complete clarity on the root cause. The issue
is definitely the database connection pool being exhausted.
Here's my detailed analysis..."

[200 lines of report]

User: [provides data that contradicts analysis]

Claude: "This changes everything..."

Problem: Claimed certainty with unverified assumptions.

CORRECT - Honest Assessment

🟡 40% Confidence: Database connection pool may be exhausted

Evidence:
- [+15%] Error pattern matches connection timeout
- [+10%] Load spike occurred around failure time

Why not 100%:
- [-25%] Haven't verified actual pool metrics
- [-15%] Haven't ruled out: network issues, DNS problems
- [-10%] This is mostly pattern matching, not direct evidence

To increase confidence: I need the connection pool metrics
from the time of failure. Can you provide those?

WRONG - Confidence in Explanation Quality

Claude: "Based on my thorough analysis of the code flow,
I'm certain the bug is in the authentication middleware."

Problem: Thoroughness of presentation ≠ correctness. Detailed reasoning without verified evidence is speculation.

CORRECT - Evidence-Based Confidence

🟠 75% Confidence: Bug is in authentication middleware

Evidence:
- [+20%] Error message explicitly mentions "token expired"
- [+15%] Code trace shows validation at auth/middleware.ts:45
- [+10%] Token timestamp is from 2 hours ago

Why not 100%:
- [-10%] Haven't verified the clock sync between servers
- [-15%] Could be a different middleware in the chain

To increase confidence: Let me check the server time sync
and trace the full middleware chain.

Self-Validation Rule

Before returning to user with questions you can answer yourself:

Can I gather more evidence myself?
├─ Search codebase for confirming/denying data?
├─ Fetch a file that validates an assumption?
├─ Check actual state vs assumed state?
└─ Run a test to verify?

If YES → DO IT. Then reassess confidence.
If NO → Present with honest confidence + what you need.

Critical: If confidence is below 80% and you CAN gather more evidence → DO IT.

Trigger Words

Auto-invoke this skill when about to claim:

• "root cause is", "the problem is"
• "complete clarity", "definitely", "certainly"
• "clearly the issue", "obviously"
• Any conclusive claim during investigation

Integration

Skill	Relationship
critical-peer	Challenge conclusions lacking evidence
research-first	Gather evidence before concluding
debugging-methodology	Evidence-based investigation

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Violation
"Complete clarity"	Claimed certainty without validation
"Definitely the issue"	Unqualified conclusion
Building detailed reports	Thoroughness ≠ correctness
"It's probably X"	Missing confidence % and gaps
Skipping falsifiability	Haven't asked "what would prove me wrong?"

Quick Reference

• Did I express confidence as a percentage?
• Did I explain what's stopping 100%?
• Did I show evidence for the % claimed?
• Could I gather more evidence myself?
• Did I check for falsifying evidence?