diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-recon/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-recon/SKILL.md
--- a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-recon/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-recon/SKILL.md
@@ -252 +252 @@ Core methodology:
-- [confidence.md](../pathfinding/references/confidence.md) — confidence calibration (shared with pathfinding)
+- [confidence-calibration.md](references/confidence-calibration.md) — evidence-based confidence calibration
@@ -263 +263,0 @@ Related skills:
-- `outfitter:pathfinding` — clarifying requirements before analysis
diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-recon/references/confidence-calibration.md b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-recon/references/confidence-calibration.md
new file mode 100644
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-recon/references/confidence-calibration.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# Confidence Calibration
+
+Confidence measures how strongly the available evidence supports a codebase
+finding. It does not measure requirement clarity or implementation readiness.
+
+## Calibration Dimensions
+
+Consider these dimensions together; do not average them mechanically:
+
+- **Directness**: runtime observation and source code outweigh inference.
+- **Coverage**: evidence spans the relevant execution paths and modules.
+- **Corroboration**: code, tests, documentation, and history agree.
+- **Counter-evidence**: plausible alternatives and contradictory cases were checked.
+- **Remaining gaps**: unknown behavior is bounded and stated explicitly.
+
+## Typical Levels
+
+| Level | Evidence state |
+| --- | --- |
+| 0 | No repository evidence collected yet. |
+| 1 | Broad structure or search results only. |
+| 2 | Relevant code located, but behavior or scope is not verified. |
+| 3 | Main path traced with some corroboration; meaningful gaps remain. |
+| 4 | Multiple sources support the finding and counter-examples were checked. |
+| 5 | Relevant scope is covered, alternatives are ruled out, and conclusions are directly supported. |
+
+A clear user request can narrow the investigation but cannot raise confidence in
+a finding by itself. Documentation alone normally remains at level 1-2. A
+single code path without tests, history, or runtime confirmation normally
+remains at level 2-3.
+
+## Examples
+
+### Focused Question, Strong Evidence
+
+Question: "Does deleting this adapter break the HTTP client?"
+
+Evidence: imports show no production consumer, tests cover the replacement
+adapter, and history confirms the old adapter was retained only for migration.
+After checking dynamic loading and configuration references, report at level
+4-5. Cite each source and distinguish observed facts from the final inference.
+
+### Cross-Module Finding, Incomplete Evidence
+
+Question: "Why do all write operations depend on the legacy package?"
+
+Evidence: searches show imports in several modules, but runtime registration
+and generated code have not been inspected. Stay at level 2-3. Continue tracing
+composition roots and tests before claiming an architectural dependency.
+
+### Early Delivery
+
+The user asks for findings before runtime behavior or history can be checked.
+Deliver the verified portion at its current level and include `△ Caveats` with:
+
+- the evidence already inspected;
+- assumptions required by the conclusion;
+- unverified modules or execution paths;
+- the next checks that would materially change confidence.
+
+Do not present the early report as level 5 even when the likely explanation is
+simple.
+
+## Delivery Check
+
+Before assigning level 4 or 5, confirm that:
+
+- more than one relevant evidence source supports the conclusion;
+- direct observations and inferences are labeled separately;
+- at least one plausible counter-example was considered;
+- the investigated scope matches the wording of the conclusion;
+- remaining uncertainty is absent or explicitly bounded.