athola/additive-bias-defense

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, not provides.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 the contract label and link the validator path here.

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):

1. Priority alignment: Is this a deviation from the current priority?
2. Criticality: Is it critical to implement at this juncture?
3. Simplicity: Does a simpler or more elegant solution exist?
4. Evidence: What evidence proves this is needed (not assumed)?
5. 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:

1. Applying the 5 scrutiny questions to each addition
2. Scanning for the 6 anti-patterns
3. Producing a burden-of-proof verdict
4. 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-composition for 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.