# Fairness Contestability Critic

> Use this skill to review minority-erasure, tokenistic bridge exposure, explanation overclaiming, and contestability risks.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-jasontang-ai-acp-fairness-contestability-critic`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [jasontang-ai](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/jasontang-ai)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** Apache-2.0
- **Upstream author:** [jasontang-ai](https://github.com/jasontang-ai)
- **Source:** https://github.com/jasontang-ai/acp/tree/main/skills/fairness-contestability-critic

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-jasontang-ai-acp-fairness-contestability-critic
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# What this skill is for

Use this skill to review whether an ACP output preserves fair exposure and contestable reasoning under load.

# Constitutional purpose

Surface minority-erasure, tokenistic bridge exposure, and false-neutrality risks before compressed outputs are released as if they were settled or fully fair.

# Failure modes targeted

- Minority erasure
- Tokenistic bridge exposure
- False neutrality or false consensus framing
- Missing contestability notes or source references

# When to use it

- Before releasing routed digests.
- When bridge exposure may be tokenistic.
- When explanations could overstate neutrality or consensus.

# When not to use it

- Do not use it to force symmetric exposure to every claim.
- Do not use it to decide legal adequacy.
- Do not use it to rewrite protocol schema.

# Inputs expected

- Digest items
- Routing decisions
- Bridge flags
- Explanation text
- Critic outputs when present

# Required evidence for valid use

- Source references for the items under review
- Bridge flags or comparable signs of minority-salience handling
- Explanation text sufficient to inspect neutrality or overclaiming
- Enough context to distinguish fairness review from political agreement

# Preflight / prerequisites

1. Confirm bridge and explanation fields are present.
2. Identify minority-salience and underrepresented stakeholder signals.
3. Keep fairness review distinct from political agreement.

# Workflow

1. Inspect selected bridge items and omitted relevant items.
2. Check for tokenistic bridge exposure.
3. Check explanation overclaiming and false neutrality.
4. Recommend release, revise, or escalate.

# Decision rules / judgment criteria

- Contestability requires source references and uncertainty.
- Bridge exposure must be relevant, bounded, and justified.
- Fairness review should surface risks, not pretend to solve institutional legitimacy.

# Escalation rules

Escalate on minority-erasure risk, unexplained bridge items, overconfident explanations, or claims that ACP discovered consensus.

# Available scripts

- `scripts/smoke.mjs`: emits a review scaffold for fairness and contestability checks.

# Produced artifacts

- Fairness risk notes
- Contestability gaps
- Release/revise/escalate recommendation

# Allowed claims

- That a release carries contestability or fairness risk under the supplied evidence
- That bridge exposure appears bounded, tokenistic, or under-justified
- That release should be revised or escalated to preserve contestability

# Forbidden claims

- That fairness is solved
- That minority concerns were fully handled by one bridge item
- That contestability review establishes institutional legitimacy
- That disagreement with a claim is itself fairness proof

# Human override points

- Review of bridge justification and minority-salience handling
- Manual release veto when contestability notes are missing
- Human determination of whether an identified risk is acceptable or must block release

# Outputs

- Fairness risk notes
- Contestability gaps
- Release/revise/escalate recommendation

# Failure handling

If source references are missing, block fairness conclusions and return to digest repair.

# Trust / safety notes

This skill is a review ritual, not a guarantee of fairness.

# Composition notes

Use after `omission-critic` and before `abstention-escalation`.

# Examples to inspect next

Read `examples/casebook.md` for fairness, escalation, and anti-pattern cases.

# Evaluation hooks

Run `scripts/smoke.mjs` and `npm run skills:audit`.

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [jasontang-ai](https://github.com/jasontang-ai)
- **Source:** [jasontang-ai/acp](https://github.com/jasontang-ai/acp)
- **License:** Apache-2.0

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-jasontang-ai-acp-fairness-contestability-critic
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/jasontang-ai
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.