Skip to content
Back to skills

Detect Contradiction

ASecurity

Detect an explicit contradiction in logical derivations, claims, or evidence relations; classify whether it is formal, empirical, scope-dependent, or unresolved.

  • 499 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 24, 2026
research

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 24, 2026

npx -y skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Detect Contradiction?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Detect Contradiction
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/yogsoth-ai-detect-contradiction/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/yogsoth-ai-detect-contradiction)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: detect-contradiction
description: "Detect an explicit contradiction in logical derivations, claims, or evidence relations; classify whether it is formal, empirical, scope-dependent, or unresolved."
---

# detect-contradiction

## Purpose

Detect and classify explicit contradictions in derivations, claims, or evidence relations.

## Input contract

```yaml
required: [claims_or_derivation, evidence_relations, scope_context]
optional: [logic_rules, causal_graph, contradiction_taxonomy]
constraints: [distinguish formal, empirical, scope-dependent, and unresolved contradiction; preserve both sides]
```

## Procedure

1. Normalize claims, predicates, scope, and evidence polarity.
2. Compare opposing claims or support/contradict relations under shared scope.
3. Classify the conflict and record the exact conflicting statements.
4. Create a contradiction record and identify the evidence needed for adjudication.

If the contradiction concerns treatment, component, or effect attribution, consider `analyze-intervention` as the next tactic.
If the contradiction rests on a shared but untested premise, consider `challenge-assumption` as the next tactic.

## Output contract

```yaml
produces: [contradiction_register, conflicting_relations, classification, adjudication_questions]
delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, open_questions]
```

## Quality gates

- Support and contradict evidence are both recorded; contradiction cannot be hidden by selecting one polarity.
- Scope mismatch is labeled scope-dependent rather than formal contradiction.
- Each contradiction includes both endpoints and a reproducible comparison basis.

## Parameterization

The caller must provide claim schema, evidence polarity vocabulary, scope rules, logic/causal relation types, and the adjudication status vocabulary.

## Failure and counterexamples

Reject conflicts caused only by incomparable metrics, different scopes, or duplicate text; retain them as unresolved comparability issues.

## Provenance map

- resolved: stress-test/contradiction-detection
- resolved: knowledge-structuring/contradiction-flagging
- concept: stress-test/detect-contradiction
- intermediate: Pass3/detect-contradiction
- intermediate: Pass3/flag-contradictory-evidence

## Preserved source criteria ledger

| source | physical line | kind | source criterion |
|---|---:|---|---|
| knowledge-structuring/contradiction-flagging | 18 | gate | Record simultaneous support and contradict evidence and do not ignore either. |

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…