appropriateness-bounding
Establish acceptability standards through RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method or Consensus Conference protocols.
适合你，如果需要通过结构化方法制定专业领域的接受标准。
npx oh-my-skill add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/appropriateness-boundingcurl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/appropriateness-boundingnpx oh-my-skill verify yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/appropriateness-bounding怎么用
商店整理自技能原文 · 版本 59ace64 · 表述以原文为准装上后，Claude会使用RAND/UCLA方法或共识会议流程，收集多轮专家评分、组织讨论、重新评分，最终将每个项目分类为“合适”、“不确定”或“不合适”，并报告分歧点。
当你问“某个做法在某种情境下是否合适”，或需要制定医疗指南、监管标准、接受阈值时触发。
技能原文 SKILL.md
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 Conference
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | iterative-convergence-round | Execute one full Delphi round — collect judgments, distribute anonymous feedback, measure consensus, decide whether to continue. | | threshold-calibration | Systematically sweep consensus thresholds to observe which items achieve consensus at what level, producing a threshold-consensus curve. |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | consensus-synthesis | Synthesize all rounds into a final consensus report documenting agreements, dissent, and process. |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->