self-ratelisted

# 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 wo