What problem does it solve? Philosophical and analytical texts often contain apparent contradictions that may actually be productive tensions, scope differences, or argumentative development. This Skill prevents false-positive contradiction reports while catching genuine logical, conceptual, methodological, structural, semantic, and argumentative contradictions that require intervention. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Same-Conditions Testing: Systematically compares claims across subject, predicate, scope, modality, time, scale, and conceptual meaning before classifying them as contradictory. - Severity Classification: Assigns findings to five severity levels (A–E) with confidence ratings, distinguishing critical contradictions from productive tensions worth preserving. - Use Case: When auditing a rhizomatic text about AI that claims both "AI participates in decision-making" and "AI does not independently decide," the Skill reconstructs both claims, tests whether participation and independent decision are the same predicate, and concludes they are compatible rather than contradictory. ## Quick Start Analyze this text for apparent contradictions and classify each finding as a genuine contradiction or a productive tension with severity and confidence ratings.
