Detect annotation artifacts and shortcuts in benchmarks
Scanned 6/1/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill artifact-detection --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Artifact Detection?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/yogsoth-ai-artifact-detection)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: artifact-detection
description: Detect annotation artifacts and shortcuts in benchmarks
execution: tactic
used-by: benchmark-archaeology
---
# Artifact Detection Tactic
Systematically probe benchmarks for annotation artifacts, dataset shortcuts, and spurious correlations that allow models to achieve high scores without the intended capability.
## Stages
### Stage 1: Hypothesis-Only Baseline Test
Search literature for evidence that partial-input baselines achieve unexpectedly high performance:
- Hypothesis-only baselines (NLI without premise)
- Question-only baselines (QA without context)
- Label-word frequency baselines
- Majority-class and surface-pattern baselines
**Search queries**: "[benchmark] annotation artifacts", "[benchmark] hypothesis only", "[benchmark] spurious correlations", "[benchmark] dataset bias"
If published partial-input results exist, record performance gap between partial and full input. Gap < 10 points above random indicates severe artifacts.
### Stage 2: Contrast Set Construction
Identify whether contrast sets or adversarial evaluations exist:
- Search for "[benchmark] contrast sets", "[benchmark] adversarial examples"
- Check if CheckList-style behavioral tests have been applied
- Look for counterfactual data augmentation studies
Record performance drops on contrast sets. Drops > 20 points indicate reliance on surface patterns.
### Stage 3: Format Manipulation Probes
Search for evidence of format sensitivity:
- Prompt template sensitivity studies
- Label name/ordering effects
- Verbalization effects in classification
- Input length correlations with labels
Record whether minor format changes cause disproportionate score changes.
### Stage 4: Conclusion Synthesis
Aggregate evidence into artifact severity assessment:
| Severity | Criteria |
|----------|----------|
| Critical | Partial-input baseline within 5 points of full model |
| High | Contrast set drop >20 points OR format sensitivity >10 points |
| Medium | Known artifacts documented but partial mitigations exist |
| Low | Minor artifacts, full-input still required for high performance |
| None | No evidence of artifacts (may indicate insufficient probing) |
## Output
```yaml
artifact_report:
benchmark: string
overall_severity: critical|high|medium|low|none
partial_input_baselines:
- input_type: string # e.g., "hypothesis only"
performance: float
full_model_performance: float
gap: float
source: string
contrast_set_results:
- contrast_set: string
original_performance: float
contrast_performance: float
drop: float
source: string
format_sensitivity:
- manipulation: string
score_range: string
source: string
shortcuts_identified:
- shortcut: string
mechanism: string
exploitability: high|medium|low
evidence_completeness: thorough|partial|minimal
```
## Yield Report
| Metric | Minimum |
|--------|---------|
| Literature sources checked | 5 |
| Artifact categories probed | 3 |
| Evidence items collected | 4 |
| Severity classification produced | 1 |
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!