confidence-scoring

This skill provides systematic evaluation of PRPs (Product Requirement Prompts) and work-orders to determine their readiness for execution or delegation.

When to Use This Skill

Activate this skill when:

• Creating a new PRP (/prp:create)

• Generating a work-order (/blueprint:work-order)

• Deciding whether to execute or refine a PRP

• Evaluating whether a task is ready for subagent delegation

• Reviewing PRPs/work-orders for quality

Scoring Dimensions

1. Context Completeness (1-10)

Evaluates whether all necessary context is explicitly provided.

| 10 | All file paths explicit with line numbers, all code snippets included, library versions specified, integration points documented

| 8-9 | Most context provided, minor gaps that can be inferred from codebase

| 6-7 | Key context present but some discovery required

| 4-5 | Significant context missing, will need exploration

| 1-3 | Minimal context, extensive discovery needed

Checklist:

File paths are absolute or clearly relative to project root Code snippets include actual line numbers (e.g., src/auth.py:45-60) Library versions are specified Integration points are documented Patterns from codebase are shown with examples

2. Implementation Clarity (1-10)

Evaluates how clear the implementation approach is.

| 10 | Pseudocode covers all cases, step-by-step clear, edge cases addressed

| 8-9 | Main path clear, most edge cases covered

| 6-7 | Implementation approach clear, some details need discovery

| 4-5 | High-level only, significant ambiguity

| 1-3 | Vague requirements, unclear approach

Checklist:

Task breakdown is explicit Pseudocode is provided for complex logic Implementation order is specified Edge cases are identified Error handling approach is documented

3. Gotchas Documented (1-10)

Evaluates whether known pitfalls are documented with mitigations.

| 10 | All known pitfalls documented, each has mitigation, library-specific issues covered

| 8-9 | Major gotchas covered, mitigations clear

| 6-7 | Some gotchas documented, may discover more

| 4-5 | Few gotchas mentioned, incomplete coverage

| 1-3 | No gotchas documented

Checklist:

Library-specific gotchas documented Version-specific behaviors noted Common mistakes identified Each gotcha has a mitigation Race conditions/concurrency issues addressed

4. Validation Coverage (1-10)

Evaluates whether executable validation commands are provided.

| 10 | All quality gates have executable commands, expected outcomes specified

| 8-9 | Main validation commands present, most outcomes specified

| 6-7 | Some validation commands, gaps in coverage

| 4-5 | Minimal validation commands

| 1-3 | No executable validation

Checklist:

Linting command provided and executable Type checking command provided (if applicable) Unit test command with specific test files Integration test command (if applicable) Coverage check command with threshold Security scan command (if applicable) All commands include expected outcomes

5. Test Coverage (1-10) - Work-Orders Only

Evaluates whether test cases are specified.

| 10 | All test cases specified with assertions, edge cases covered

| 8-9 | Main test cases specified, most assertions included

| 6-7 | Key test cases present, some gaps

| 4-5 | Few test cases, minimal detail

| 1-3 | No test cases specified

Checklist:

Each test case has code template Assertions are explicit Happy path tested Error cases tested Edge cases tested

Calculating Overall Score

For PRPs

Overall = (Context + Implementation + Gotchas + Validation) / 4

For Work-Orders

Overall = (Context + Gotchas + TestCoverage + Validation) / 4

Score Thresholds

| 9-10 | Excellent | Ready for autonomous subagent execution

| 7-8 | Good | Ready for execution with some discovery

| 5-6 | Fair | Needs refinement before execution

| 3-4 | Poor | Significant gaps, recommend research phase

| 1-2 | Inadequate | Restart with proper research

Response Templates

High Confidence (7+)

## Confidence Score: X.X/10

| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Context Completeness | X/10 | [specific observation] |
| Implementation Clarity | X/10 | [specific observation] |
| Gotchas Documented | X/10 | [specific observation] |
| Validation Coverage | X/10 | [specific observation] |
| **Overall** | **X.X/10** | |

**Assessment:** Ready for execution

**Strengths:**
- [Key strength 1]
- [Key strength 2]

**Recommendations (optional):**
- [Minor improvement 1]

Low Confidence (<7)

## Confidence Score: X.X/10

| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Context Completeness | X/10 | [specific gap] |
| Implementation Clarity | X/10 | [specific gap] |
| Gotchas Documented | X/10 | [specific gap] |
| Validation Coverage | X/10 | [specific gap] |
| **Overall** | **X.X/10** | |

**Assessment:** Needs refinement before execution

**Gaps to Address:**
- [ ] [Gap 1 with suggested action]
- [ ] [Gap 2 with suggested action]
- [ ] [Gap 3 with suggested action]

**Next Steps:**
1. [Specific research action]
2. [Specific documentation action]
3. [Specific validation action]

Examples

Example 1: Well-Prepared PRP

## Confidence Score: 8.5/10

| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Context Completeness | 9/10 | All files explicit, code snippets with line refs |
| Implementation Clarity | 8/10 | Pseudocode covers main path, one edge case unclear |
| Gotchas Documented | 8/10 | Redis connection pool, JWT format issues covered |
| Validation Coverage | 9/10 | All gates have commands, outcomes specified |
| **Overall** | **8.5/10** | |

**Assessment:** Ready for execution

**Strengths:**
- Comprehensive codebase intelligence with actual code snippets
- Validation gates are copy-pasteable
- Known library gotchas well-documented

**Recommendations:**
- Consider documenting concurrent token refresh edge case

Example 2: Needs Work

## Confidence Score: 5.0/10

| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Context Completeness | 4/10 | File paths vague ("somewhere in auth/") |
| Implementation Clarity | 6/10 | High-level approach clear, no pseudocode |
| Gotchas Documented | 3/10 | No library-specific gotchas |
| Validation Coverage | 7/10 | Test command present, missing lint/type check |
| **Overall** | **5.0/10** | |

**Assessment:** Needs refinement before execution

**Gaps to Address:**
- [ ] Add explicit file paths (use `grep` to find them)
- [ ] Add pseudocode for token generation logic
- [ ] Research jsonwebtoken gotchas (check GitHub issues)
- [ ] Add linting and type checking commands

**Next Steps:**
1. Run `/prp:curate-docs jsonwebtoken` to create ai_docs entry
2. Use Explore agent to find exact file locations
3. Add validation gate commands from project's package.json

Integration with Blueprint Development

This skill is automatically applied when:

• /prp:create generates a new PRP

• /blueprint:work-order generates a work-order

• Reviewing existing PRPs for execution readiness

The confidence score determines:

• 9+: Proceed with subagent delegation

• 7-8: Proceed with direct execution

• < 7: Refine before execution

Tips for Improving Scores

Context Completeness

• Use grep to find exact file locations

• Include actual line numbers in code snippets

• Reference ai_docs entries for library patterns

Implementation Clarity

• Write pseudocode before describing approach

• Enumerate edge cases explicitly

• Define error handling strategy

Gotchas Documented

• Search GitHub issues for library gotchas

• Check Stack Overflow for common problems

• Document team experience from past projects

Validation Coverage

• Copy commands from project's config (package.json, pyproject.toml)

• Include specific file paths in test commands

• Specify expected outcomes for each gate