sads-detector-sweep

name	sads - Detector Sweep
description	Scan files for ambiguity, proxying, bundled questions, undefined terms, hidden conditionals, goal substitution, and conventional bias.
context	fork
output	{"format":"prose"}

Detector Sweep

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

Scan a target set of files for:

• Ambiguity and undefined terms
• Proxying and bundled questions
• Hidden conditionals and false dichotomies
• NEW: Goal substitution patterns (clarification vs substitution)
• NEW: Conventional bias (missing unconventional alternatives)

---

Steps

Step 1: Scan for Classic High-Risk Patterns

Scan for:

• parentheticals that hide additional questions
• "if yes/no" scaffolding that bundles conditions
• "or" questions that create false dichotomies
• undefined terms used as if shared
• proxy patterns (formatting used as substitute for validation)

Step 2: Scan for Goal Substitution Patterns (NEW)

Scan for language that may indicate silent goal substitution:

Pattern	Example	Risk
"Underlying need"	"What you really need is..."	May replace stated goal
"Achievable version"	"A more realistic goal would be..."	May reduce ambition
"What you probably mean"	"I think you mean..."	Imposes interpretation
"Better framed as"	"This is better understood as..."	Changes goal
"The real problem is"	"Your actual problem is..."	Problem substitution

For each instance found:

• Is this CLARIFICATION (same goal, clearer) or SUBSTITUTION (different goal)?
• If SUBSTITUTION: Is consent requested?
• If no consent: Flag for repair

Step 3: Scan for Conventional Bias (NEW)

Check if ASSUME WRONG branches default to conventional alternatives:

Pattern	Example	Risk
Only standard solutions	"The options are A, B, or C" (all conventional)	Missing unconventional
"Best practices" as only option	"Best practice is to..."	No alternatives considered
Industry standard default	"The normal approach is..."	May miss better options
No "what if opposite" check	Missing contrarian analysis	Confirmation bias

Unconventional alternative check:

• Does the text include at least one unconventional/surprising option?
• Are "what if the opposite is true" scenarios explored?
• Are there options that would be "embarrassing to suggest but might work"?

Step 4: Classify Each Issue by Repair Type

For each issue, choose one repair type:

Classic repairs:

• split into separate questions
• define term(s)
• add answer-interface (what would count as a check)
• replace proxy with content audit
• move evaluation criteria into explicit checklist

Substitution repairs:

• add clarification vs substitution check
• add consent request for substitutions
• preserve original goal statement
• make reframing explicit

Conventional bias repairs:

• add unconventional alternative requirement
• add "what if opposite" check
• add embarrassing-but-might-work prompt
• expand option space before narrowing

Step 5: Prioritize Issues

Severity	Type	Action
HIGH	Silent substitution without consent	Immediate repair
HIGH	Undefined term in decision point	Immediate repair
MED	Bundled question	Repair before use
MED	Missing unconventional alternatives	Add alternatives
LOW	Proxy pattern	Document for later
LOW	Minor ambiguity	Note but may accept

---

Output Format

## Detector Sweep Results: [target]

### Classic Pattern Issues
| Location | Pattern | Severity | Repair |
|----------|---------|----------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Goal Substitution Issues
| Location | Pattern | Type | Consent? | Repair |
|----------|---------|------|----------|--------|
| ... | ... | CLAR/SUB | Y/N | ... |

### Conventional Bias Issues
| Location | Pattern | Missing | Repair |
|----------|---------|---------|--------|
| ... | ... | [what's missing] | ... |

### Summary
- Classic issues: [count]
- Substitution issues: [count]
- Conventional bias issues: [count]
- Total HIGH severity: [count] (need immediate repair)

---

When to Use

• Before refactoring gates or procedures
• When text feels "rigorous" but is hard to check
• When different readers interpret the same line differently
• NEW: When auditing goal-related skills for substitution
• NEW: When checking ARAW output for conventional bias

---

Integration Points

• Related: /self_audit_apply_detectors_and_generators, /gate_as_claim_audit
• Gate: clarification_vs_substitution_gate (for substitution detection)
• ARAW skill: unconventional enforcement section