# Principle Name The Scorer

> Apply when a product has two (or more) scorers that both emit weights, priorities, or rankings — especially hand-authored theme/report priorities beside learned historical-case tag weights. Name which scorer produced which number; never imply one sets the other unless wiring is explicit.

- Skill: `edbertchan/principle-name-the-scorer` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add edbertchan/principle-name-the-scorer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/edbertchan/principle-name-the-scorer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: EdbertChan (https://skillmd.com/u/edbertchan)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/edbertchan/principle-name-the-scorer

---


# Name the Scorer

When a product keeps **two intentional scorers** — (A) hand-authored
theme/report priorities and (B) learned historical-case tag weights — treat
them as separate provenance. Coexistence is not a feed.

**Must always:**

- Answer "where did this weight come from?" by naming the scorer (file,
  config key, or module), not by blending both into one vague "the model."
- When docs say the systems are intentionally separate, cite that separation
  instead of inventing a causal link.
- If the user asks whether B sets A (or A sets B), say no unless the code
  path that wires them is shown in the same answer.

**Must never:**

- Imply that learned case-frequency / tag weights set hand-authored finding
  or theme priorities (or the reverse) just because both are numbers in
  `[0, 1]` and both affect ranking-ish UX.
- Collapse two scorers into one sentence that makes a reader think one
  number updates the other when it does not.

**Shape to watch:**

| Lane | Typical artifact | What it scores |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A — hand-authored | `finding_priorities`, theme/report priority YAML | What this product *wants* to emphasize |
| B — learned | `learned_flag_weights`, historical-case tag weights | What *showed up* across past cases |

Same product may ship both. Provenance answers name the lane.

**Battle-tested:** A fraud-repo reflect asked whether
`learned_flag_weights` set `finding_priorities`. Docs and wiring kept them
separate; the failure was conversational — answering as if B drove A.
Nothing in the code was wrong, so nothing in the code could catch it.

**Related, not the same:** `principle-bind-to-named-inventory` picks among
named scorers before inventing a new model. This skill is provenance: once
two scorers already exist, name which one produced the number you cite.