blindspot — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited blindspot (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.
A single-figure peripheral-vision audit. After weeks on a paper, the main finding collapses attention onto one feature of a plot and everything else — the spike at t=1, the missing subgroup, the heterogeneity richer than the average, the identification strength the paper undersells — goes invisible. This skill forces you to see them again.
Shklovsky's frame: art exists to restore perception, to make the stone stony again. /blindspot does that for one figure or table at a time.Position vs. neighbors. /blindspot is figure-level. /seven-pass-review is manuscript-level (seven parallel reviewers across abstract/intro/methods/results/robustness/prose/citations). /audit-reproducibility cross-checks numbers against code outputs. /review-paper-code audits the script that built the figure. They compose; they do not substitute for each other. If the user asks for a "deep review of the paper" or "review my draft," that is /seven-pass-review, not this skill.
/draft or /referee-response.$0 — path to ONE figure or table. Accepted forms:.png, .jpg, .jpeg — read via Read tool's multimodal support so the actual image content is in context..pdf (single-figure PDF) — read via Read..tex or .pgf snippet, or a TikZ / pgfplots block. Read as text; reason from the code.path/to/main.tex:fig:event-study — open main.tex, locate the \begin{figure} / \begin{table} whose \label{...} matches, read the surrounding caption and code, and (if the figure is \includegraphics{...}) recursively read that image file.Projects typically live under <OVERLEAF_ROOT>/<PROJECT_SUBDIR>/.
| What's visible but un-seen | What's absent but un-noticed | |
|---|---|---|
| Vices (problems) | (1) Unexplained Feature | (2) Convenient Absence |
| Virtues (opportunities) | (3) Unasked Question | (4) Unexploited Strength |
Something in the figure that does not fit the story but nobody flagged. The t=1 spike before the treatment date. A coefficient that flips sign in one subsample column. A CI that is suspiciously narrow at one event-time. An attribute axis on a GAN grid where the high-attribute tail looks identical to the middle. An SAE heatmap with one outlier feature firing on a token that shouldn't matter. A bar in a conjoint that is 3x the others with no comment.
Protocol: enumerate every visible feature before interpreting any. For each, list mundane generators first (rounding, sample restriction, axis range, color-mapping artifact, a coord_cartesian() clip, a single influential observation) and only then substantive ones. Name the single hardest feature to explain under the user's preferred reading.
The dog that did not bark. Pre-trends not plotted. A placebo period missing from the event-study. CI not shown on one panel. A subgroup examined elsewhere in the paper but not on this figure. Sample size changing across columns with no N= row. The control mean missing from a treatment-effect plot, so the reader cannot judge magnitude.
Protocol: ask what a hostile MKSCI / JMR referee demands to see on this exact figure — falsification panel, pre-treatment leads, placebo outcome, alternative bandwidth, control mean, balance test, robust SEs. Name what is missing.
A pattern in the figure that hints at a more interesting finding than the one being claimed. Heterogeneity richer than the average effect (one subgroup carrying everything). A non-monotonicity that the linear-summary obscures. A second mode in a distribution that suggests a mixture. A mechanism visible in the spatial layout of an SAE heatmap that the text does not name. A predicted-engagement curve with a kink at a meaningful threshold.
Protocol: is there a paper inside this paper? Would showing the heterogeneity panel separately upgrade the contribution? Does the figure suggest a moderator the design did not pre-specify?
The figure is doing more work than the paper claims. Natural variation the design exploits but the prose undersells. A clean discontinuity that would survive a placebo. A pre-trend so flat it would crush a parallel-trends objection in one panel — but is currently buried. An identification argument stronger than the text allows itself to say. A GAN-grid axis that is unusually clean and could anchor a stronger causal claim about the manipulated attribute.
Protocol: is the figure the strongest version of itself? Could one annotation (a horizontal reference line, a callout for the control mean, a shaded pre-period) turn this from supporting evidence into the headline figure?
$0. If it's path:label, locate the \label{label} in the .tex and pull the surrounding \begin{figure} / \begin{table} block + caption. If it \includegraphics's a file, read that file too.Print a single Markdown block, no preamble:
# Blindspot — <figure id or path>
**Reading under audit:** <1-sentence paraphrase of the user's claimed interpretation, or "(none provided)">
## (1) Unexplained Feature
- <bullet> — FLAG | DONE
- <bullet> — FLAG | DONE
## (2) Convenient Absence
- <bullet> — FLAG | DONE
## (3) Unasked Question
- <bullet>
## (4) Unexploited Strength
- <bullet>
## Verdict: CLEAR | CONDITIONAL | HOLD
<one sentence on what to do before writing prose around this figure>Rules:
Hedged, modest, no padding. No "Overall, this is a strong figure." No emojis. Use \Cref{}-style references when pointing at panels (panel (b), column 3, event-time t=2). When naming a substantive cause, prefer the mundane generator first: rounding, sample mask, clip, single influential obs.
/seven-pass-review — manuscript-level adversarial review across seven lenses. Run after the draft around this figure is written. Do not route here when the user asks for a paper-level review./audit-reproducibility — verifies the numbers in the figure match the script that produced them. /blindspot does not check numbers; it checks perception./review-paper-code — audits the analysis script that built the figure. Complement, not substitute./draft, /referee-response — natural next steps once a blindspot verdict is CLEAR or CONDITIONAL.Ported from Scott Cunningham's MixtapeTools (scunning1975/MixtapeTools, skills/blindspot/), which was itself prompted by Jason Fletcher's "Owning All the Numbers" framing and Viktor Shklovsky's Art as Device (1917). Adapted here for quantitative-marketing figures — coefficient plots, DiD event-studies, conjoint utilities, predicted-engagement curves, GAN attribute axes, SAE feature heatmaps, time-series plots.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.