Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsBlogPro
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges
  • Chrome Extension
  • Skill Manager

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
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 9/24/2026
research

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 9/24/2026

$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 automatically 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
Files
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

yogsoth-aiyogsoth-ai
View sourceSee grades on GitHubMore from yogsoth-ai →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

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 (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Related Skills

Competitor Analysis

This skill provides comprehensive analysis of competitor SEO and GEO strategies, revealing what's working in your market and identifying opportunities to outperform the competition.

1823 votes

Deep Research

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report co...

502942 votes

Paperclip Distill

Use when an operation issue is a Paperclip cursor-window, distill, or backfill — `operationType: "distill"` or `"backfill"` and the body references a Paperclip source bundle for a project or root issue. Turn raw Paperclip activity into a wiki-insightful project page, decisions log, and history note. This skill exists specifically to replace the stiff, datestamp-heavy templated output that the deterministic distiller produces.

953191 votes

Academic Pipeline

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory, coverage-bounded integrity checks, two-stage peer review, and auditable quality-assurance artifacts. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end p...

502941 votes

Literature Review

Assistance with writing literature reviews by searching for academic sources via Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref and PubMed APIs. Use when the user needs to find papers on a topic, get details for specific DOIs, or draft sections of a literature review with proper citations.

6511 votes
View all in research →