Contradiction resolution

Skill ralfyishere/piensalo/micro-skills/contradiction-resolution

PIÉNSALO is the open artificial cortex for AI—reduce context tokens, verify response quality, expand when needed, and safely fall back.

Install

npx -y skills add ralfyishere/piensalo --skill contradiction-resolution

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

2 things to look at

25 days oldThe repository was created 25 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
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

When inputs contain conflicting facts, stop and resolve the conflict explicitly — classify it, pick a resolution rule, and log what stays unresolved — before building anything on either side. Activate when two sources give different values for the same quantity, a document's claim disagrees with observed state, or the text itself flags inconsistency.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.9 KB, 487 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

contradiction-resolution

Trigger (observable): Two sources in the task give different values for the same quantity, a document's claim disagrees with observed/live state, or the text itself flags inconsistency ('but the dashboard says', 'these numbers don't match').

When NOT to activate: Apparent conflicts already resolved by scope (different time windows, different populations) and the scoping is stated; deliberate counterfactuals or A/B arms meant to differ; pure opinion differences with no factual referent.

Procedure

State the contradiction in one sentence naming both sides and their sources ('Doc says jobs 1–3 done; crontab shows job 3 never installed').
Classify it: transcription error / version skew / scope difference (different windows, units, populations) / one source stale / genuine conflict.
Pick the resolution rule and apply it: live observed state beats documents; recomputation beats quotation; fresher primary beats older secondary. Name which rule was used.
Once one claim from a source is proven wrong, downgrade that source's remaining claims to unverified — do not keep trusting its other markers.
Anything still unresolved is logged as an explicit caveat attached to every conclusion that depends on it — not dropped because it doesn't block the literal task.

Required output

A contradiction log: one sentence per conflict, its classification, the resolution rule applied (or 'unresolved'), and which downstream claims carry the caveat.

Verification

Each detected contradiction is stated in one sentence with both sources named and a classification.
Every conclusion depending on a conflicted fact either cites the applied resolution rule or carries the unresolved caveat — no silent side-taking.

Known risk: Contradiction-hunting in noisy data where trivial mismatches (rounding, timestamps) stall real work. Mitigation: the classification step routes trivia to one-line closure.

Max intended cost: ≤300 added output tokens; up to one live-state check per conflict where a command can settle it.

Evidence status: SMOKE_TESTED — executed end-to-end in live sessions and behaves as specified; no measured lift is claimed.

Lineage: Grounded in two evidence-backed repair patterns — evidence kills specific hypotheses rather than whole spaces, and live observed state beats plan markers — plus a documented reasoning-failure mode: building conclusions on one side of an unresolved contradiction.