abstract-structure
Remove domain surface details to expose transferable relational/mechanistic structure at a chosen abstraction level.
Detect an explicit contradiction in logical derivations, claims, or evidence relations; classify whether it is formal, empirical, scope-dependent, or unresolved.
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction -a codex -y
Cursor
$ npx skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction -a cursor -y
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction -a gemini-cli -y
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction -a github-copilot -y
OpenCode
$ npx skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction -a opencode -y
Windsurf
$ npx skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill detect-contradiction -a windsurf -y
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 and classify explicit contradictions in derivations, claims, or evidence relations.
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]
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.
produces: [contradiction_register, conflicting_relations, classification, adjudication_questions] delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, open_questions]
The caller must provide claim schema, evidence polarity vocabulary, scope rules, logic/causal relation types, and the adjudication status vocabulary.
Reject conflicts caused only by incomparable metrics, different scopes, or duplicate text; retain them as unresolved comparability issues.
| source | physical line | kind | source criterion | |---|---:|---|---| | knowledge-structuring/contradiction-flagging | 18 | gate | Record simultaneous support and contradict evidence and do not ignore either. |
A research skill graph for AI-native science. 271 markdown files. No runtime, no dependencies, no build step.
Remove domain surface details to expose transferable relational/mechanistic structure at a chosen abstraction level.
Evaluate competing arguments against stated criteria and produce a reasoned verdict with uncertainty.
Move a scientific object up/down in abstraction or narrow/broaden selected scope dimensions (population, mechanism, context,…
Run structured attack/defense/adjudication over a claim, candidate, criterion set, or current winner. Perspective, target,…
Aggregate criterion or comparison results into an ordered recommendation under an explicit rule.
Abstract relational structure from source domains, map it to the target, validate depth, and instantiate transferable mechanisms.
Direct browser control via CDP for web interaction: automation, scraping, testing, screenshots, and site/app work. Also covers…
Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, including navigating pages, filling…