ensemble-content-scorer

name	ensemble-content-scorer
description	Multi-model consensus scoring for content ideas. Scores the same idea with Claude, GPT-4o, Gemini, and Grok in parallel, then aggregates for a balanced verdict. Reduces single-model bias and improves viral predictions.

Ensemble Content Scorer

Wisdom of crowds, but for AI. This skill scores your content ideas using multiple AI models, then aggregates for consensus. More reliable than single-model predictions.

---

WHAT IT DOES

                Content Idea
                     │
    ┌────────────────┼────────────────┐
    │                │                │
    ▼                ▼                ▼
[Claude]        [GPT-4o]         [Gemini]
  Score            Score            Score
    │                │                │
    └────────────────┼────────────────┘
                     │
                     ▼
            [Aggregator (Claude)]
                     │
                     ▼
         Consensus Score + Verdict

---

WHY MULTI-MODEL?

Single Model	Ensemble
May have biases	Biases cancel out
One perspective	Multiple perspectives
Black box score	Transparent reasoning
May miss nuances	Catches different angles

---

TRIGGERS

Use this skill when you say:

• "Score this content idea"
• "Is this topic worth pursuing?"
• "Rate my video concept"
• "Predict if this will go viral"
• "Ensemble score: [topic]"

---

USAGE

In Claude Code (Recommended)

"Ensemble score: Statins myth-busting for Indian audience"

"Score this video idea: Why your LDL target depends on your risk"

"Rate these ideas and rank them:
1. GLP-1 agonists explained
2. Heart attack warning signs
3. Is coconut oil heart-healthy?"

CLI Mode

# Score single idea
python scripts/score_content.py --idea "Statins myth-busting for Indian audience"

# Score multiple ideas
python scripts/score_content.py --ideas "GLP-1 explained" "Statin myths" "CAC scoring"

# Use specific models
python scripts/score_content.py --idea "Topic" --models claude,gpt4o,gemini

---

SCORING DIMENSIONS

Each model scores on these dimensions (1-10):

Dimension	What It Measures
Relevance	How relevant to target audience (Indian patients/doctors)
Novelty	How fresh is the angle? Been covered before?
Expertise Match	Does it match your expertise as interventional cardiologist?
Engagement Potential	Will it capture and hold attention?
Share-ability	Will people share this? Controversy potential?
Evergreen Factor	Will this be relevant in 6 months?

Total Score: 0-60

---

OUTPUT FORMAT

# ENSEMBLE CONTENT SCORE

**Idea:** Statins myth-busting for Indian audience - why most "side effects" aren't real

**Date:** 2025-01-01

---

## INDIVIDUAL MODEL SCORES

### Claude (Anthropic)
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Relevance | 9/10 | High - statins widely prescribed in India, misinformation common |
| Novelty | 7/10 | Topic covered before, but Indian-specific angle is fresher |
| Expertise | 9/10 | Perfect for interventional cardiologist |
| Engagement | 8/10 | Controversial enough to spark discussion |
| Shareability | 8/10 | Will trigger debates |
| Evergreen | 9/10 | Statin myths persist |
| **Total** | **50/60** | |

### GPT-4o (OpenAI)
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Relevance | 9/10 | Very relevant for Indian audience |
| Novelty | 6/10 | Many statin videos exist |
| Expertise | 10/10 | Perfect fit |
| Engagement | 9/10 | Myth-busting format works |
| Shareability | 8/10 | Good controversy factor |
| Evergreen | 8/10 | Will stay relevant |
| **Total** | **50/60** | |

### Gemini (Google)
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Relevance | 8/10 | Good for health-conscious Indians |
| Novelty | 7/10 | Indian angle adds freshness |
| Expertise | 9/10 | Great fit |
| Engagement | 7/10 | Educational more than viral |
| Shareability | 7/10 | Moderate share potential |
| Evergreen | 9/10 | Long-lasting relevance |
| **Total** | **47/60** | |

---

## CONSENSUS SCORE

| Model | Total Score |
|-------|-------------|
| Claude | 50/60 |
| GPT-4o | 50/60 |
| Gemini | 47/60 |
| **Average** | **49/60 (81.7%)** |
| **Std Dev** | 1.7 (High Consensus) |

---

## VERDICT

🟢 **STRONG PURSUE** (Score: 49/60, Consensus: High)

All models agree this is a strong content idea. The combination of:
- High relevance to your audience
- Perfect expertise match
- Good controversy factor
- Evergreen potential

Makes this a priority topic for your content calendar.

---

## RECOMMENDATIONS

1. **Angle Enhancement**: Focus on the "nocebo effect" - most statin "side effects" are psychosomatic
2. **Hook Suggestion**: "90% of statin side effects aren't real - here's the data"
3. **Format**: 12-15 minute deep dive with studies
4. **Hinglish Tip**: Use "side effect ka drama" for relatability

---

## DISSENT ANALYSIS

- **Gemini** scored lower on engagement (7 vs 8-9)
- Suggests: May need stronger hook to maximize viral potential
- Consider: Adding patient testimonial or counter-narrative

---

SCORING TIERS

Score Range	Verdict	Action
50-60	🟢 STRONG PURSUE	High priority, create immediately
40-49	🟡 WORTH PURSUING	Good idea, add to calendar
30-39	🟠 NEEDS REFINEMENT	Has potential, needs angle work
20-29	🔴 RECONSIDER	Weak idea, low priority
0-19	⛔ SKIP	Not worth the effort

---

CONSENSUS INTERPRETATION

Std Deviation	Interpretation
< 3	High consensus - models agree
3-5	Moderate consensus - some disagreement
> 5	Low consensus - divisive idea (may be worth exploring!)

---

INTEGRATION

Enhances:

• viral-content-predictor - More reliable predictions
• youtube-script-master - Validate topics before scripting
• content-repurposer - Know which content to repurpose

Workflow:

Idea Generation → Ensemble Score → [High Score?] → Create Content
                         ↓
                   [Low Score?] → Refine or Skip

---

MODELS USED

Model	Provider	Cost	Notes
Claude Sonnet	Anthropic	Subscription	Your primary
GPT-4o	OpenAI	API	Strong analysis
Gemini Pro	Google	FREE	Good for fact-checking
Grok	xAI	API	Twitter trend awareness

Minimum required: 2 models (Claude + one other) Recommended: 3+ models for robust consensus

---

DEPENDENCIES

anthropic>=0.18.0
openai>=1.0.0           # For GPT-4o
google-generativeai>=0.3.0  # For Gemini
python-dotenv>=1.0.0
rich>=13.0.0

---

API KEYS NEEDED

Key	Purpose	Status
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY	Claude	Already have
OPENAI_API_KEY	GPT-4o	Already have
GOOGLE_API_KEY	Gemini	Already have
XAI_API_KEY	Grok (optional)	Already have

---

BATCH SCORING

For scoring multiple ideas at once:

python scripts/score_content.py --batch \
    --ideas "GLP-1 for heart failure" \
            "Statin myth-busting" \
            "CAC scoring guide" \
            "Why LDL matters" \
            "Exercise for heart health"

Output:

| Rank | Idea | Score | Verdict |
|------|------|-------|---------|
| 1 | Statin myth-busting | 49/60 | 🟢 STRONG PURSUE |
| 2 | GLP-1 for heart failure | 45/60 | 🟡 WORTH PURSUING |
| 3 | CAC scoring guide | 42/60 | 🟡 WORTH PURSUING |
| 4 | Why LDL matters | 38/60 | 🟠 NEEDS REFINEMENT |
| 5 | Exercise for heart health | 35/60 | 🟠 NEEDS REFINEMENT |

---

NOTES

• Speed: ~30 seconds for single idea (parallel API calls)
• Cost: Minimal - short prompts to each model
• Reliability: Consensus typically more accurate than single model
• When to ignore: If YOU have strong conviction, trust your expertise

---

This skill helps you invest your time in content that's more likely to succeed.