signal-scoring

I've been exploring signal-scoring implementations, and I'm curious how you're approaching the scoring logic—particularly how you're weighting different signal types to avoid false positives. The skill scores well on utility (68/100), but there's room to tighten up the specification and make the scoring heuristics more transparent.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

TL;DR

You're at 68/100, which puts you in solid D territory. This is based on Anthropic's progressive disclosure architecture standards for agentic skills. Your Writing Style is your strongest pillar (8/10)—the framework is clear and well-organized. The weakest spots are Spec Compliance (11/15) and PDA (18/30), mainly because you're missing trigger phrases in the description and the templates you mention aren't actually provided as reference files.

What's Working Well

• Clear framework structure – Your 5-step approach (Source Inventory → Weighting → Decay Logic → Tier Definition → Governance) is logical and easy to follow. The progression makes sense for someone building a scoring model.
• Strong writing voice – You're using imperative language consistently ("list", "assign", "set") and keeping the tone instructional rather than marketing-y. That's exactly what developers want.
• Practical governance angle – The governance section with "audit tiers," "change log," and "review cadence" addresses a real pain point—most scoring frameworks ignore the human side of maintenance.

The Big One: Missing Template Files

Your biggest friction point is right here: you mention three templates (Scoring worksheet, Tier definition matrix, Change log) but don't actually provide them. This tanks your PDA score and leaves developers hanging at the...