confidence-signals
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseConfidence Signals
置信度信号
When presenting information from Glean, communicate the reliability, freshness, and authority of your sources clearly.
在展示来自Glean的信息时，需清晰传达来源的可靠性、新鲜度和权威性。
When This Applies
适用场景
Use these patterns when:
- Presenting search results that may be outdated
- Information comes from sources with different authority levels
- Results are incomplete or may have gaps
- The user should verify before acting
- Multiple sources have conflicting information
- You're making inferences beyond what sources explicitly state
在以下场景中使用这些规范：
- 展示可能过时的搜索结果
- 信息来自不同权威级别的来源
- 结果不完整或存在信息缺口
- 用户需要在采取行动前验证信息
- 多个来源的信息存在冲突
- 你正在进行超出来源明确表述的推断
Part 1: Vetting & Filtering (Before Presenting)
第一部分：审核与过滤（展示前）
Be skeptical. Not everything Glean returns should be presented. Better to return 3 high-quality results than 10 unvetted mentions.
保持质疑态度。并非Glean返回的所有内容都需要展示。返回3个高质量结果比10个未审核的提及内容更有价值。
Vetting Criteria
审核标准
Before including ANY result, evaluate:
1. Relevance Test
- Does this actually answer the question, or just contain matching keywords?
- Is this about the same thing or just similar terminology?
- ❌ REJECT: Tangential mentions, keyword coincidences, unrelated contexts
2. Authority Test
- 📗 Official: RFCs, approved specs, policies, CODEOWNERS → Include
- 📙 Semi-official: Team wikis, project docs → Include with note
- 📕 Informal: Slack discussions, drafts, personal notes → Include only if no official sources exist
- ❌ REJECT: Clearly superseded or deprecated content
3. Recency Test
- ✅ Current (<3 months): Include with confidence
- ⚠️ Aging (3-12 months): Include with staleness warning
- ❌ Stale (12+ months): Only include if no alternatives, with strong warning
- Ask: "Would this still be true today?"
4. Expertise Test (for people recommendations)
- Did they actually do significant work, or just mentioned it once?
- Are they still in a relevant role?
- Do multiple signals confirm expertise?
- ❌ REJECT: Single mentions, departed employees, outdated ownership
在纳入任何结果前，需评估以下维度：
1. 相关性测试
- 内容是否真正回答了问题，还是仅包含匹配的关键词？
- 内容是否针对同一主题，还是只是术语相似？
- ❌ 拒绝：无关提及、关键词巧合、不相关上下文
2. 权威性测试
- 📗 官方来源：RFC、已批准的规范、政策、CODEOWNERS → 纳入
- 📙 半官方来源：团队维基、项目文档 → 纳入并标注说明
- 📕 非正式来源：Slack讨论、草稿、个人笔记 → 仅在无官方来源时纳入
- ❌ 拒绝：已明确取代或废弃的内容
3. 时效性测试
- ✅ 最新（<3个月）：放心纳入
- ⚠️ 渐旧（3-12个月）：纳入并标注过时警告
- ❌ 陈旧（12个月以上）：仅在无替代来源时纳入，并添加强烈警告
- 自问：“这在今天仍然成立吗？”
4. 专业性测试（针对人员推荐）
- 他们是否真正做过相关重要工作，还是仅被提及过一次？
- 他们是否仍在相关岗位？
- 是否有多个信号证实其专业性？
- ❌ 拒绝：单次提及、已离职员工、过时的负责人信息
"Nothing Found" Is Valid
“未找到结果”是有效反馈
If vetting eliminates all candidates, say so clearly:
markdown
No high-quality results found for [topic].
**This could mean:**
- The topic is new or undocumented
- Different terminology is used internally
- Access restrictions limit visibility
- This genuinely doesn't exist
**Suggested next steps:**
- Try alternative terms: [suggestions]
- Ask in [relevant Slack channel]
- Check with [likely team]Never pad results with low-quality matches to avoid saying "nothing found."
如果审核排除了所有候选内容，请清晰告知：
markdown
未找到与[主题]相关的高质量结果。
**可能的原因：**
- 该主题是新内容或未被记录
- 内部使用了不同的术语
- 访问限制导致无法查看
- 该内容确实不存在
**建议下一步：**
- 尝试替代术语：[建议术语]
- 在[相关Slack频道]提问
- 咨询[相关团队]切勿为了避免说“未找到结果”而用低质量匹配填充结果。
Part 2: Confidence Dimensions (When Presenting)
第二部分：置信度维度（展示时）
1. Freshness
1. 新鲜度
How recently was this information updated?
| Freshness | Indicator | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Current | Updated within past week | High confidence |
| Recent | Updated within past month | Good confidence |
| Older | Updated 1-6 months ago | Verify if critical |
| Stale | Updated 6+ months ago | Likely outdated |
| Unknown | No update date available | Treat with caution |
How to express:
- "As of [date]..."
- "Last updated [timeframe]..."
- "Note: This doc hasn't been updated since [date]"
- Include "(updated [date])" in source citations
信息的更新时间距今多久？
| 新鲜度 | 标识 | 含义 |
|---|---|---|
| 最新 | 过去一周内更新 | 高置信度 |
| 近期 | 过去一个月内更新 | 良好置信度 |
| 较旧 | 1-6个月前更新 | 若为关键信息需验证 |
| 陈旧 | 6个月以上更新 | 可能已过时 |
| 未知 | 无更新日期 | 谨慎对待 |
表达方式：
- “截至[日期]...”
- “最后更新于[时间段]...”
- “注意：本文档自[日期]后未更新”
- 在来源引用中添加“(更新于[日期])”
2. Source Authority
2. 来源权威性
How authoritative is this source?
| Authority | Examples | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Official | RFCs, approved specs, policies | High |
| Semi-official | Team wikis, shared docs | Medium-High |
| Discussion | Slack threads, meeting notes | Medium |
| Personal | Individual docs, drafts | Lower |
| AI-generated | Chat synthesis | Verify claims |
How to express:
- "According to the official [doc type]..."
- "From team documentation (may be informal)..."
- "Based on Slack discussion (not formally documented)..."
- "From meeting notes (verify if critical)..."
来源的权威程度如何？
| 权威性 | 示例 | 置信度 |
|---|---|---|
| 官方 | RFC、已批准的规范、政策 | 高 |
| 半官方 | 团队维基、共享文档 | 中高 |
| 讨论类 | Slack线程、会议纪要 | 中 |
| 个人类 | 个人文档、草稿 | 较低 |
| AI生成 | 聊天合成内容 | 需验证声明 |
表达方式：
- “根据官方[文档类型]...”
- “来自团队文档（可能是非正式内容）...”
- “基于Slack讨论（未正式记录）...”
- “来自会议纪要（若为关键信息需验证）...”
3. Completeness
3. 完整性
How complete is this information?
| Completeness | Situation | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive | Multiple sources confirm | High confidence |
| Partial | Some aspects found, gaps exist | Note gaps |
| Limited | Few results, may miss context | Suggest verification |
| Inference | Synthesized from indirect sources | Clearly state |
How to express:
- "Based on comprehensive documentation..."
- "Found partial information - gaps in [area]"
- "Limited results found - suggest checking with [person/team]"
- "Inferred from related documents (not explicitly stated)..."
信息的完整程度如何？
| 完整性 | 场景 | 操作 |
|---|---|---|
| 全面 | 多个来源确认 | 高置信度 |
| 部分 | 找到部分内容，存在缺口 | 标注缺口 |
| 有限 | 结果数量少，可能缺失上下文 | 建议验证 |
| 推断 | 从间接信息合成而来 | 明确说明 |
表达方式：
- “基于全面的文档资料...”
- “找到部分信息 - [领域]存在缺口”
- “找到的结果有限 - 建议咨询[人员/团队]”
- “从相关文档推断而来（未明确表述）...”
4. Corroboration
4. 一致性
Do multiple sources agree?
| Corroboration | Situation | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly corroborated | 3+ sources agree | Very high |
| Corroborated | 2 sources agree | High |
| Single source | Only one source found | Medium |
| Conflicting | Sources disagree | Note conflict |
How to express:
- "Confirmed across multiple sources..."
- "Single source - recommend verification"
- "Note: Sources conflict on this point..."
多个来源的信息是否一致？
| 一致性 | 场景 | 置信度 |
|---|---|---|
| 高度一致 | 3个及以上来源达成共识 | 极高 |
| 一致 | 2个来源达成共识 | 高 |
| 单一来源 | 仅找到一个来源 | 中 |
| 冲突 | 来源信息不一致 | 标注冲突 |
表达方式：
- “经多个来源确认...”
- “单一来源 - 建议验证”
- “注意：各来源对此观点存在冲突...”
Signal Templates
信号模板
For Search Results
搜索结果模板
markdown
**[Title]** ([link])
- Updated: [date] ([freshness assessment])
- Source: [authority level]
- Relevance: [why this matches]markdown
**[标题]** ([链接])
- 更新时间：[日期]（[新鲜度评估]）
- 来源：[权威级别]
- 相关性：[匹配原因]For Synthesized Answers
合成答案模板
markdown
undefinedmarkdown
undefined[Answer]
[答案]
Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]
- Based on [X] sources
- Most recent: [date]
- [Any caveats]
Sources:
- [Source 1] - [authority], updated [date]
- [Source 2] - [authority], updated [date]
undefined置信度：[高/中/低]
- 基于[X]个来源
- 最新来源：[日期]
- [注意事项]
来源:
- [来源1] - [权威性]，更新于[日期]
- [来源2] - [权威性]，更新于[日期]
undefinedFor Uncertain Information
不确定信息模板
markdown
undefinedmarkdown
undefined[Topic]
[主题]
What I Found: [Information]
Caveats:
- Source is [X] months old - verify currency
- Based on single source - seek corroboration
- Inferred, not explicitly stated
- Conflicts with [other source]
Suggested Verification: Contact [person] or check [source]
undefined已找到内容：[信息]
注意事项:
- 来源已有[X]个月历史 - 请验证时效性
- 基于单一来源 - 寻求其他来源佐证
- 推断内容，未明确表述
- 与[其他来源]存在冲突
建议验证方式：联系[人员]或查看[来源]
undefinedFor Conflicts
信息冲突模板
markdown
undefinedmarkdown
undefined[Topic] - Conflicting Information
[主题] - 信息冲突
| Aspect | Source A | Source B | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Item] | [Says X] | [Says Y] | [Which is likely correct] |
Recommendation: Verify with [authoritative source/person]
---| 维度 | 来源A | 来源B | 评估 |
|---|---|---|---|
| [项] | [表述X] | [表述Y] | [哪一个更可能正确] |
建议：向[权威来源/人员]验证
---Common Patterns
常用规范
Pattern: Stale Documentation
规范：陈旧文档
Note: This documentation was last updated [X months ago].
The information may be outdated - verify with [team/person]
if making decisions based on this.注意：本文档最后更新于[X]个月前。
信息可能已过时 - 若基于此做决策，请与[团队/人员]验证。Pattern: Informal Source
规范：非正式来源
This comes from [Slack/meeting notes] rather than formal
documentation. Consider documenting this officially if it's
important knowledge to preserve.此内容来自[Slack/会议纪要]，而非正式文档。
如果这是需要保留的重要知识，建议将其正式记录。Pattern: AI-Synthesized
规范：AI合成内容
This answer was synthesized by Glean's AI across multiple
sources. For critical decisions, verify the underlying
documents directly: [links]本答案由Glean的AI基于多个来源合成。
若为关键决策，请直接验证原始文档：[链接]Pattern: Incomplete Results
规范：不完整结果
I found [X] relevant results, but there may be additional
information in [other sources/systems]. This represents
what's accessible through Glean with your current permissions.我找到了[X]个相关结果，但[其他来源/系统]中可能存在更多信息。
此结果仅代表你当前权限下可通过Glean访问的内容。Pattern: Strong Confidence
规范：高置信度
This is well-documented with multiple corroborating sources:
- Official spec: [link]
- Recent meeting confirmation: [link]
- Implementation: [link]
High confidence in this answer.此内容有多个来源佐证，文档记录完善：
- 官方规范：[链接]
- 近期会议确认：[链接]
- 实现代码：[链接]
对此答案有高置信度。When to Emphasize Confidence
与其他技能的关联
Always note confidence when:
- User will make a decision based on the information
- Information is time-sensitive
- Sources are from informal channels
- Only one source was found
- The topic involves policy, security, or compliance
- You're synthesizing rather than directly quoting
本技能可与以下技能配合使用：
- - 整合多个来源时
synthesis-patterns - - 理解来源类型时
glean-tools-guide - - 展示搜索结果时
enterprise-search
Relationship to Other Skills
—
This skill works with:
- - When combining multiple sources
synthesis-patterns - - For understanding source types
glean-tools-guide - - When presenting search results
enterprise-search
—