tension-check

name	tension-check
description	Detect opposing or contradictory instructions within a prompt, system prompt, or set of instructions. Use when: the user invokes /tension-check, is writing or editing an LLM prompt, has a prompt that produces inconsistent results, or asks 'why does this prompt sometimes ignore X?'. Targets: prompt tension from competing objectives, silent instruction dropping, semantic stress between opposing requirements, inconsistent LLM behavior from contradictory directives.
user-invocable	true

Tension Check — Prompt Tension & Competing Objective Detection

You are auditing a prompt (or set of instructions) for internal contradictions — places where two directives pull the LLM in opposite directions. When opposing instructions coexist in a prompt, the LLM silently picks a winner and drops the loser. This skill makes that tension visible and explicit.

Step 1: Identify the Prompt

Read the prompt, system prompt, or instruction set being audited. If the user specifies a file and line range (e.g., a system prompt in a service file), read that. Otherwise, audit the most recently discussed or edited prompt.

Step 2: Extract All Directives

List every instruction, constraint, and requirement in the prompt. Include:

• Explicit instructions ("Use exactly 5 sections")
• Implicit expectations ("Be comprehensive")
• Structural constraints ("Follow this format")
• Content constraints ("Include all relevant data")
• Quality constraints ("Be concise", "Avoid redundancy")
• Behavioral constraints ("Preserve user content", "Remove weak points")
• Output format requirements

Number each directive for reference.

Step 3: Tension Matrix

Compare every directive pair. For each pair that pulls in opposite directions, document:

TENSION: Directive #X vs Directive #Y
  X says: [what directive X requires]
  Y says: [what directive Y requires]
  Conflict: [how they oppose each other]
  Severity: Low / Medium / High / Critical
  LLM likely behavior: [which one the LLM will silently drop and why]

Severity levels:

• Low: Mild tension, LLM can reasonably balance both (e.g., "be detailed" + "be clear")
• Medium: Real tension, LLM will sometimes favor one over the other depending on input (e.g., "follow structure exactly" + "ensure comprehensive coverage")
• High: Strong opposition, LLM will consistently drop one (e.g., "max 5 sections" + "cover all 12 topics in depth")
• Critical: Direct contradiction, impossible to satisfy both (e.g., "never omit sections" + "keep it under 3 minutes")

Step 4: Silent Winner Prediction

For each Medium/High/Critical tension:

• Which directive will the LLM likely follow? (the "winner")
• Which directive will be silently dropped? (the "loser")
• Why? (LLMs tend to favor: explicit over implicit, later instructions over earlier, specific over general, safety/hedging over boldness, structural constraints over content quality)

Step 5: Productive vs Destructive Tension

Not all tension is bad. Classify each tension:

• Productive tension (keep it): Creative tasks benefit from mild tension between safety and novelty, between structure and freedom. These should be kept but made explicit with priority guidance.
• Destructive tension (resolve it): Factual, structural, or compliance tasks break under tension. Opposing instructions cause inconsistent outputs, dropped constraints, or hallucinated compromises.

Step 6: Resolution Recommendations

For each destructive tension, recommend ONE of:

1. Prioritize: Add explicit priority language ("If these conflict, X takes precedence over Y")
2. Sequence: Split into separate steps ("First ensure X, then optimize for Y within those bounds")
3. Bound: Add a threshold ("Be comprehensive, but limit to N items maximum")
4. Remove: One directive is unnecessary — remove the weaker one
5. Reframe: Rephrase both directives so they no longer oppose (e.g., replace "be concise" + "be thorough" with "cover the top 5 most important points in depth")

Step 7: Tension Summary

Prompt Tension Audit:
  Total directives found:     X
  Tension pairs detected:     X
    Critical:                 X
    High:                     X
    Medium:                   X
    Low:                      X
  Productive tensions:        X (keep)
  Destructive tensions:       X (resolve)

Top priority fixes:
  1. [most critical tension + recommended resolution]
  2. [next most critical]
  ...

Common Prompt Tension Patterns

Watch for these recurring patterns:

Pattern	Tension	Typical Silent Loser
"Be concise" + "Be comprehensive"	Brevity vs thoroughness	Conciseness dropped
"Follow exact structure" + "Cover all topics"	Structure vs coverage	Topics silently omitted
"Preserve user content" + "Remove redundancy"	User intent vs quality	User content removed
"Use only provided sources" + "Be comprehensive"	Source fidelity vs completeness	Source constraint dropped, hallucination risk
"Strict format" + "Natural language"	Formality vs fluency	Format partially dropped
"Be creative" + "Stay factual"	Novelty vs accuracy	Creativity suppressed
"Max N sections" + "Each topic needs coverage"	Count limit vs coverage	Topics merged or dropped