thedixitjain The default answer to "should we add this?" is no. The burden of proof is on the addition.
Additive Bias Defense
Note (#444): Frontmatter declares
provides.guidance, notprovides.contract. The scrutiny questions are consumed by partner skills (pensive:code-refinement,conserve:unbloat,imbue:scope-guard) that voluntarily embed them; no validator or hook in leyline enforces them directly. If a future contributor adds enforcement, restore thecontractlabel and link the validator path here.
When NOT To Use
- Removing bloat that already landed (use
conserve:bloat-detector) - Scoring whether a feature is worth building (use
imbue:scope-guard)
The Problem
LLMs are additive by nature. They reinvent wheels, add unnecessary complexity, hallucinate issues and modify tests to justify them, and deviate from priorities. This contract provides a systemic defense.
The Scrutiny Questions
Applied to every proposed addition (code, files, abstractions, error handling, configuration):
- Priority alignment: Is this a deviation from the current priority?
- Criticality: Is it critical to implement at this juncture?
- Simplicity: Does a simpler or more elegant solution exist?
- Evidence: What evidence proves this is needed (not assumed)?
- Consequence: What breaks if we do not add this?
If the proposer cannot answer questions 4 and 5 with concrete evidence, the addition is unjustified.
Anti-Pattern Detection
| Pattern | Signal | Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Wheel reinvention | New utility/helper overlapping existing code | "Does X already do this?" |
| Hallucinated issues | Fix for a bug with no reproduction evidence | "Show the failing test before the fix" |
| Test manipulation | Test changed to match behavior rather than spec | "Did the spec change, or did you change the test?" |
| Complexity creep | Abstraction introduced for single use case | "Is this the 3rd use, or the 1st?" |
| Priority deviation | Work not traceable to current task/spec | "Which requirement does this serve?" |
| Gold plating | Error handling or flexibility beyond need | "What breaks without this?" |
Burden of Proof Verdict
After applying scrutiny questions and anti-pattern detection, produce a verdict:
| Verdict | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
justified |
Evidence supports the addition | Proceed |
needs_evidence |
Plausible but unproven | Provide evidence or remove |
unjustified |
No evidence, likely bias | Remove or justify |
Integration Contract
Review-oriented skills MUST consult this contract by:
- Applying the 5 scrutiny questions to each addition
- Scanning for the 6 anti-patterns
- Producing a burden-of-proof verdict
- Including the verdict in their output
Consuming Skills
| Skill | Integration Point |
|---|---|
attune:war-room |
Prosecution Counsel role uses scrutiny questions |
sanctum:pr-review |
Every added file/function challenged |
pensive:code-refinement |
Refactors pass "3rd use" test |
conserve:unbloat |
Findings feed removal candidates |
attune:mission-orchestrator |
Plan sections scanned before user review |
imbue:justify |
Scrutiny questions extend audit protocol |
Related Skills
imbue:karpathy-principles- "Simplicity First" and "Surgical Changes" principles invoke this contract from a higher-level four-principle synthesis- See
docs/quality-gates.md#skill-level-quality-gate-compositionfor the full gate-skill federation graph
The Subtraction Principle
Rely less on AI and initial lines of thinking. Challenge yourself to think of a more elegant implementation or a simpler solution.
Before accepting any addition, ask: "Could I achieve this by removing code instead of adding it?" If yes, prefer the subtractive approach.
Exit Criteria
- All 5 scrutiny questions applied to every proposed addition; questions 4 (evidence) and 5 (consequence) answered with concrete evidence, not assumptions
- All 6 anti-patterns scanned (wheel reinvention, hallucinated issues, test manipulation, complexity creep, priority deviation, gold plating); any match named with the pattern label
- A burden-of-proof verdict produced for each addition:
justified,needs_evidence, orunjustified; the verdict appears in the consuming skill's output - Subtraction principle applied: at least one check for "could this be achieved by removing code instead?" before accepting any net-positive line-count change
Source: athola/claude-night-market → plugins/leyline/skills/additive-bias-defense/SKILL.md