Process-Outcome Credit Assignment for Multi-Step Reasoning

This skill enables Claude to evaluate, score, and improve multi-step reasoning chains by applying the Marginal Information Gain (MIG) framework from Wang et al. (2026). Instead of judging reasoning only by its final answer (outcome credit) or by step position (naive process credit), this approach measures each step's intrinsic semantic contribution — how much closer it moves toward the correct solution compared to the best progress achieved so far. This produces precise, position-independent credit assignment that identifies pivotal breakthroughs, flags redundant steps, and pinpoints where reasoning derails.

When to Use

• When a user shares a multi-step derivation (math proof, debugging trace, logical argument) and asks which steps are most important or where the reasoning breaks down
• When reviewing chain-of-thought outputs from LLMs to identify reasoning quality beyond just answer correctness
• When the user wants to improve a step-by-step solution by pruning redundant steps or strengthening weak ones
• When debugging why a multi-step pipeline (data transformation, algorithm design, proof attempt) produces incorrect results despite some steps being valid
• When comparing two different solution paths to the same problem and deciding which reasoning chain is higher quality
• When building or refining prompts that require structured multi-step reasoning and the user wants to know which intermediate instructions actually contribute

Key Technique

Marginal Information Gain with Historical Watermark

Traditional evaluation gives binary feedback: the final answer is right or wrong. This discards all signal about which intermediate steps drove correctness or failure. Position-based heuristics (weighting later steps higher) also fail — empirically they correlate poorly (Spearman rho=0.254) with true step value because pivotal breakthroughs often happen early.