jasontang-ai 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.