self-rate

Self-Rate

Score your own work on a calibrated scale, then change the work to match the score — lower the claims you can't back, or do more work to earn a higher one. Honest self-assessment beats confident hand-waving. Pairs with [[but-for-real]] (which verifies) — this one grades.

Why calibrated

A number means nothing without anchors. Define what the scale's points actually mean before you score, or every answer drifts to "8/10, looks good".

Default 1–10 anchors:

• 1–3 — likely wrong, unverified, or missing the point; would embarrass me if shipped
• 4–6 — plausible but has known gaps, untested claims, or weak spots I can name
• 7–8 — solid; verified the core, minor caveats remain
• 9–10 — verified end-to-end, edge cases considered, I'd bet on it

Procedure

1. Pick dimensions that fit the work — typically correctness/evidence, completeness, clarity, risk. For a single factual claim, one "confidence in this claim" score is enough.
2. Score each dimension against the anchors, with a one-line justification naming the specific reason — "6: didn't run the migration on a populated table", not "6: seems okay".
3. Act on the score — this is the point, not the number:
   • Low score → add the caveat explicitly, or do the missing work to raise it
   • Overclaim → downgrade the wording to match what you actually verified
   • High score you can't justify → it's not high; re-score honestly
4. Return the scores + the revised work.

Common mistakes

• Inflating to be agreeable — the user wants the real number, not reassurance.
• Scoring without anchors, so everything lands at 7–8.
• Justifications that restate the score ("8 because it's good") instead of naming evidence or the missing piece.
• Producing a score and then not changing anything — the rating exists to drive a revision.