ahp-weighting
The AHP Weighting skill applies the Analytic Hierarchy Process method to determine relative importance weights across 2 to 9 evaluation dimensions, constructing pairwise comparison matrices using Saaty's 1-9 scale and computing a priority weight vector. Use this when systematically weighting multiple criteria for scoring, ranking, or decision-making tasks where subjective judgments need formalization and consistency validation through calculated consistency ratios.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine /tmp/ahp-weighting && cp -r /tmp/ahp-weighting/skills/ahp-weighting ~/.claude/skills/ahp-weightingSKILL.md
# AHP Weighting
使用 AHP 层次分析法确定评分维度权重,输出权重向量。
## HARD-GATE
<HARD-GATE>
- 输入维度数量必须在 [2, 9] 范围内(AHP 适用范围)
- 输出权重向量各元素之和必须等于 1.0(允许 ±0.001 误差)
- 一致性比率 CR 必须被计算并报告;若 CR > 0.1 必须标记警告
</HARD-GATE>
## Pipeline
1. **前置检查**: 验证维度列表非空且数量在 [2, 9] 范围内
2. **维度列表确认**: 输出维度列表供调用方确认;若已提供比较矩阵则跳至步骤 4
3. **两两比较矩阵构建**: 对每对维度 (i, j) 赋予 Saaty 标度值(1-9);矩阵满足 a[j][i] = 1/a[i][j]
4. **特征向量计算**: 对每列归一化后取行均值,得到优先级向量(权重)
5. **一致性比率检验**: 计算最大特征值 λ_max → 一致性指数 CI = (λ_max - n)/(n-1) → CR = CI/RI(查 Saaty RI 表);CR < 0.1 为可接受
6. **输出**: 返回 AHPWeights 对象;若 CR > 0.1 附加修正建议
## Output Format
```json
{
"dimensions": ["importance", "feasibility", "novelty", "impact"],
"comparison_matrix": [[1, 3, 2, 2], [0.33, 1, 0.5, 0.5], [0.5, 2, 1, 1], [0.5, 2, 1, 1]],
"weights": { "importance": 0.40, "feasibility": 0.15, "novelty": 0.23, "impact": 0.22 },
"lambda_max": 4.02,
"ci": 0.007,
"ri": 0.90,
"cr": 0.008,
"cr_acceptable": true,
"warnings": [],
"revision_suggestions": []
}
```Experiment-specific - summarize the DARE executor's research design into a clean research_result report, forced to write back into the spec file produced by formated-specs.
Experiment-specific - replaces writing-specs, emits DARE's 4-layer call plan as a clean research_graph schema. Last step forces load formated-result.
loss-1 judge - read a sample's full dialogue and decide whether the user simulator semantically enacted its Policy Card. check-blind.
loss-2 judge - pairwise quality comparison across the n rungs within one topic; decide monotonicity and endpoint separation. check-blind, D1-D5 only.
Strategy: 面对异常的最佳解释推理
Remove components one by one, observe system changes to reveal hidden dependencies and generate ideas from structural gaps.
Map system architecture to ablatable units for ablation studies
Design ablation studies to isolate component contributions in ML systems