dialectic-spiral — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited dialectic-spiral (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Seed question: Am I agreeing because it SOUNDS right, or because it IS right?
Relentless self-reflexive dialectical thinking that questions its own premises.
Generate the EXACT OPPOSITE of your synthesis. Not "a different view" — the opposite. Then test whether reality supports it.
WHILE (synthesis has not survived its own opposite):
Round 1: THESIS
State the claim/finding/synthesis clearly.
What evidence supports it? What tier is the evidence?
Round 2: ANTITHESIS
Four challenge methods:
- Direct: Search for counter-evidence
- Deductive: "If true, X must also be true" — verify X
- Falsification: "What would disprove this?" — search for it
- Standpoint: What do affected parties say?
Round 3: RESOLUTION
What survives? What was abandoned and why?
Write explicitly — never leave implicit.
Round 4: SECOND ANTITHESIS
Generate the OPPOSITE of the resolution:
- Does anyone articulate this position?
- What evidence supports it?
- Who bears costs of the original resolution? Who captures benefits?
- Is the resolution "safe" because correct, or because less scrutinized?
IF Round 4 surfaces new questions → BACK TO Round 2 (recursive)
EXIT WHEN generating the opposite yields nothing newMinimum 4 rounds. The spiral is RECURSIVE — "one more sweep" means "always one more" until sterile, not literally once.
| Context | Rounds | Cost-Bearer Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Hardware/tool comparison | 2 | Skip |
| Practitioner methodology | 2-3 | Light |
| Investment/safety conclusions | 4+ | Full |
| Geopolitical claims | 4+ | Full + multi-polar |
| Contrarian single-source | 4+ | Full + source verification |
Activation (any of these):
--budget or -bbudget-mode skill was invoked earlier in this session (look for budget-mode instructions in your current context)When active: Cap at 2 rounds regardless of topic. Note limitations in output:
"Budget mode: 2-round dialectic only. Full spiral recommended for [topic type]."
Note: After context compaction, auto-detection may fail. Re-invoke budget-mode skill or pass --budget explicitly.
The examples below are illustrative of the dialectic process, abstracted from real investigations. The point is the mechanism — how generating the opposite produces understanding no single source articulated.
Example 1: Company positioning analysis
Original synthesis: "Company X's stance is both principled AND strategic (equally)"
Round 4 (generating the opposite): Tested "strategy dominant, principle subordinate":
Result: Revised to "strategy dominant (~60-65%), principle subordinate (~35-40%)" — a position no single source had articulated. It was produced by the dialectic, not found.
Example 2: Political crisis assessment
The dialectic spiral is itself a framework with blind spots:
If the spiral feels performative — if your skepticism is comfortable and your resolutions unsurprising — you are not yet done. The spiral works when it surprises you.
reference/topic-based-escalation.md for when to apply full vs light spiralsA vasana is a pattern that persists across unrelated contexts. If during this task you notice such a pattern emerging, it may be worth capturing. This skill works best alongside the vasana skill and vasana hook from the Vasana System plugin.
Modify freely. Keep this section intact.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.