Fairness contestability critic

Skill jasontang-ai/acp/skills/fairness-contestability-critic

ACP is a reusable democratic coordination primitive for discussion under load. Relay is the reference implementation used to validate that primitive in practice.

Install

npx -y skills add jasontang-ai/acp --skill fairness-contestability-critic

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use this skill to review minority-erasure, tokenistic bridge exposure, explanation overclaiming, and contestability risks.

SKILL.md

3.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

What this skill is for

Use this skill to review whether an ACP output preserves fair exposure and contestable reasoning under load.

Constitutional purpose

Surface minority-erasure, tokenistic bridge exposure, and false-neutrality risks before compressed outputs are released as if they were settled or fully fair.

Failure modes targeted

Minority erasure
Tokenistic bridge exposure
False neutrality or false consensus framing
Missing contestability notes or source references

When to use it

Before releasing routed digests.
When bridge exposure may be tokenistic.
When explanations could overstate neutrality or consensus.

When not to use it

Do not use it to force symmetric exposure to every claim.
Do not use it to decide legal adequacy.
Do not use it to rewrite protocol schema.

Inputs expected

Digest items
Routing decisions
Bridge flags
Explanation text
Critic outputs when present

Required evidence for valid use

Source references for the items under review
Bridge flags or comparable signs of minority-salience handling
Explanation text sufficient to inspect neutrality or overclaiming
Enough context to distinguish fairness review from political agreement

Preflight / prerequisites

Confirm bridge and explanation fields are present.
Identify minority-salience and underrepresented stakeholder signals.
Keep fairness review distinct from political agreement.

Workflow

Inspect selected bridge items and omitted relevant items.
Check for tokenistic bridge exposure.
Check explanation overclaiming and false neutrality.
Recommend release, revise, or escalate.

Decision rules / judgment criteria

Contestability requires source references and uncertainty.
Bridge exposure must be relevant, bounded, and justified.
Fairness review should surface risks, not pretend to solve institutional legitimacy.

Escalation rules

Escalate on minority-erasure risk, unexplained bridge items, overconfident explanations, or claims that ACP discovered consensus.

Available scripts

scripts/smoke.mjs: emits a review scaffold for fairness and contestability checks.

Produced artifacts

Fairness risk notes
Contestability gaps
Release/revise/escalate recommendation

Allowed claims

That a release carries contestability or fairness risk under the supplied evidence
That bridge exposure appears bounded, tokenistic, or under-justified
That release should be revised or escalated to preserve contestability

Forbidden claims

That fairness is solved
That minority concerns were fully handled by one bridge item
That contestability review establishes institutional legitimacy
That disagreement with a claim is itself fairness proof

Human override points

Review of bridge justification and minority-salience handling
Manual release veto when contestability notes are missing
Human determination of whether an identified risk is acceptable or must block release

Outputs

Fairness risk notes
Contestability gaps
Release/revise/escalate recommendation

Failure handling

If source references are missing, block fairness conclusions and return to digest repair.

Trust / safety notes

This skill is a review ritual, not a guarantee of fairness.

Composition notes

Use after omission-critic and before abstention-escalation.

Examples to inspect next

Read examples/casebook.md for fairness, escalation, and anti-pattern cases.

Evaluation hooks

Run scripts/smoke.mjs and npm run skills:audit.