contradiction-adjudication

Frame conflicting requirements, code, and operational evidence into formal contradiction sets.

Updated Jun 1, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/aurora-atoms/lattice --skill contradiction-adjudication
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: contradiction-adjudication
Source: https://github.com/aurora-atoms/lattice/tree/main/skills/contradiction-adjudication
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/aurora-atoms/lattice --skill contradiction-adjudication

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill resolves disagreements between requirements, code, documentation, and operational evidence by framing them as bounded, evidence-linked contradictions that accountable owners can resolve.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Evidence-Based Framing: Normalizes conflicting claims while preserving source provenance, versioning, and scope.
  • Impact Analysis: Identifies affected systems, users, and delivery gates to highlight the consequences of unresolved conflicts.
  • Use Case: When a technical specification contradicts a live system configuration, use this Skill to map both positions, identify the authoritative adjudicator, and propose a single source of truth.

Quick Start

Use the contradiction-adjudication skill to analyze the conflict between the current system documentation and the observed production behavior for the user authentication module.

Frequently Asked Questions about contradiction-adjudication

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I resolve contradictions between technical specifications and live system configurations?

You can resolve contradictions between technical specifications and live configurations by framing them as bounded, evidence-linked conflicts to map both positions, identify the authoritative adjudicator, and propose a single source of truth.

What is evidence-based contradiction framing in software delivery?

Evidence-based contradiction framing normalizes conflicting claims across requirements and operational evidence while preserving source provenance, versioning, and scope to facilitate accountable resolution by owners.

How do I perform impact analysis for unresolved conflicts between code and requirements?

Perform impact analysis for unresolved conflicts by identifying affected systems, users, and delivery gates to highlight the consequences of disagreements between code, requirements, and operational evidence.

Can I use structured provenance to adjudicate conflicting operational evidence in complex environments?

Yes, you can adjudicate conflicting operational evidence in complex delivery environments by providing structured input of conflicting claims, source provenance, and impact analysis to generate a formal contradiction set.

What is the best way to establish a single source of truth when documentation contradicts production behavior?

The best way to establish a single source of truth when documentation contradicts production behavior is to normalize both positions with source provenance and identify the authoritative adjudicator to resolve the conflict.