clarity-gate — quality + safety report

---
# agentskills.io compliant frontmatter
name: clarity-gate
risk: unknown
source: community
version: 2.1.3
description: >
  Pre-ingestion verification for epistemic quality in RAG systems.
  Ensures documents are properly qualified before entering knowledge bases.
  Produces CGD (Clarity-Gated Documents) and validates SOT (Source of Truth) files.
author: Francesco Marinoni Moretto
license: CC-BY-4.0
repository: https://github.com/frmoretto/clarity-gate
triggers:
  - clarity gate
  - check for hallucination risks
  - can an LLM read this safely
  - review for equivocation
  - verify document clarity
  - pre-ingestion check
  - cgd verify
  - sot verify
capabilities:
  - document-verification
  - epistemic-quality
  - rag-preparation
  - cgd-generation
  - sot-validation
outputs:
  - type: cgd
    extension: .cgd.md
    spec: docs/CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md
spec_version: "2.1"
---

# Clarity Gate v2.1

**Purpose:** Pre-ingestion verification system that enforces epistemic quality before documents enter RAG knowledge bases. Produces Clarity-Gated Documents (CGD) compliant with the Clarity Gate Format Specification v2.1.

**Core Question:** "If another LLM reads this document, will it mistake assumptions for facts?"

**Core Principle:** *"Detection finds what is; enforcement ensures what should be. In practice: find the missing uncertainty markers before they become confident hallucinations."*

---

## What's New in v2.1

| Feature | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| **Claim Completion Status** | PENDING/VERIFIED determined by field presence (no explicit status field) |
| **Source Field Semantics** | Actionable source (PENDING) vs. what-was-found (VERIFIED) |
| **Claim ID Format Guidance** | Hash-based IDs preferred, collision analysis for scale |
| **Body Structure Requirements** | HITL Verification Record section mandatory when claims exist |
| **New Validation Codes** | E-ST10, W-ST11, W-HC01, W-HC02, E-SC06 (FORMAT_SPEC); E-TB01-07 (SOT validation) |
| **Bundled Scripts** | `claim_id.py` and `document_hash.py` for deterministic computations |

---

## Specifications

This skill implements and references:

| Specification | Version | Location |
|---------------|---------|----------|
| Clarity Gate Format (Unified) | v2.1 | docs/CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md |

**Note:** v2.0 unifies CGD and SOT into a single `.cgd.md` format. SOT is now a CGD with an optional `tier:` block.

---

## Validation Codes

Clarity Gate defines validation codes for structural and semantic checks per FORMAT_SPEC v2.1:

### HITL Claim Validation (§1.3.2-1.3.3)
| Code | Check | Severity |
|------|-------|----------|
| **W-HC01** | Partial `confirmed-by`/`confirmed-date` fields | WARNING |
| **W-HC02** | Vague source (e.g., "industry reports", "TBD") | WARNING |
| **E-SC06** | Schema error in `hitl-claims` structure | ERROR |

### Body Structure (§1.2.1)
| Code | Check | Severity |
|------|-------|----------|
| **E-ST10** | Missing `## HITL Verification Record` when claims exist | ERROR |
| **W-ST11** | Table rows don't match `hitl-claims` count | WARNING |

### SOT Table Validation (§3.1)
| Code | Check | Severity |
|------|-------|----------|
| **E-TB01** | No `## Verified Claims` section | ERROR |
| **E-TB02** | Table has no data rows | ERROR |
| **E-TB03** | Required columns missing | ERROR |
| **E-TB04** | Column order wrong | ERROR |
| **E-TB05** | Empty cell in required column | ERROR |
| **E-TB06** | Invalid date format in Verified column | ERROR |
| **E-TB07** | Verified date in future (beyond 24h grace) | ERROR |

**Note:** Additional validation codes may be defined in RFC-001 (clarification document) but are not part of the normative FORMAT_SPEC.

---

## Bundled Scripts

This skill includes Python scripts for deterministic computations per FORMAT_SPEC.

### scripts/claim_id.py

Computes stable, hash-based claim IDs for HITL tracking (per §1.3.4).

```bash
# Generate claim ID
python scripts/claim_id.py "Base price is $99/mo" "api-pricing/1"
# Output: claim-75fb137a

# Run test vectors
python scripts/claim_id.py --test
```

**Algorithm:**
1. Normalize text (strip + collapse whitespace)
2. Concatenate with location using pipe delimiter
3. SHA-256 hash, take first 8 hex chars
4. Prefix with "claim-"

**Test vectors:**
- `claim_id("Base price is $99/mo", "api-pricing/1")` → `claim-75fb137a`
- `claim_id("The API supports GraphQL", "features/1")` → `claim-eb357742`

### scripts/document_hash.py

Computes document SHA-256 hash per FORMAT_SPEC §2.2-2.4 with full canonicalization.

```bash
# Compute hash
python scripts/document_hash.py my-doc.cgd.md
# Output: 7d865e959b2466918c9863afca942d0fb89d7c9ac0c99bafc3749504ded97730

# Verify existing hash
python scripts/document_hash.py --verify my-doc.cgd.md
# Output: PASS: Hash verified: 7d865e...

# Run normalization tests
python scripts/document_hash.py --test
```

**Algorithm (per §2.2-2.4):**
1. Extract content between opening `---\n` and `<!-- CLARITY_GATE_END -->`
2. Remove `document-sha256` line from YAML frontmatter ONLY (with multiline continuation support)
3. Canonicalize:
   - Strip trailing whitespace per line
   - Collapse 3+ consecutive newlines to 2
   - Normalize final newline (exactly 1 LF)
   - UTF-8 NFC normalization
4. Compute SHA-256

**Cross-platform normalization:**
- BOM removed if present
- CRLF to LF (Windows)
- CR to LF (old Mac)
- Boundary detection (prevents hash computation on content outside CGD structure)
- Whitespace variations produce identical hashes (deterministic across platforms)

---

## The Key Distinction

Existing tools like UnScientify and HedgeHunter (CoNLL-2010) **detect** uncertainty markers already present in text ("Is uncertainty expressed?").

Clarity Gate **enforces** their presence where epistemically required ("Should uncertainty be expressed but isn't?").

| Tool Type | Question | Example |
|-----------|----------|---------|
| **Detection** | "Does this text contain hedges?" | UnScientify/HedgeHunter find "may", "possibly" |
| **Enforcement** | "Should this claim be hedged but isn't?" | Clarity Gate flags "Revenue will be $50M" |

---

## Critical Limitation

> **Clarity Gate verifies FORM, not TRUTH.**
>
> This skill checks whether claims are properly marked as uncertain—it cannot verify if claims are actually true. 
>
> **Risk:** An LLM can hallucinate facts INTO a document, then "pass" Clarity Gate by adding source markers to false claims.
>
> **Solution:** HITL (Human-In-The-Loop) verification is **MANDATORY** before declaring PASS.

---

## When to Use
- Before ingesting documents into RAG systems
- Before sharing documents with other AI systems
- After writing specifications, state docs, or methodology descriptions
- When a document contains projections, estimates, or hypotheses
- Before publishing claims that haven't been validated
- When handing off documentation between LLM sessions

---

## The 9 Verification Points

### Relationship to Spec Suite

The 9 Verification Points guide **semantic review** — content quality checks that require judgment (human or AI). They answer questions like "Should this claim be hedged?" and "Are these numbers consistent?"

When review completes, output a CGD file conforming to CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md. The C/S rules in CLARITY_GATE_FORMAT_SPEC.md validate **file structure**, not semantic content.

**The connection:**
1. Semantic findings (9 points) determine what issues exist
2. Issues are recorded in CGD state fields (`clarity-status`, `hitl-status`, `hitl-pending-count`)
3. State consistency is enforced by structural rules (C7-C10)

*Example: If Point 5 (Data Consistency) finds conflicting numbers, you'd mark `clarity-status: UNCLEAR` until resolved. Rule C7 then ensures you can't claim `REVIEWED` while still `UNCLEAR`.*

---

### Epistemic Checks (Core Focus: Points 1-4)

**1. HYPOTHESIS vs FACT LABELING**
Every claim must be clearly marked as validated or hypothetical.

| Fails | Passes |
|-------|--------|
| "Our architecture outperforms competitors" | "Our architecture outperforms competitors [benchmark data in Table 3]" |
| "The model achieves 40% improvement" | "The model achieves 40% improvement [measured on dataset X]" |

**Fix:** Add markers: "PROJECTED:", "HYPOTHESIS:", "UNTESTED:", "(estimated)", "~", "?"

---

**2. UNCERTAINTY MARKER ENFORCEMENT**
Forward-looking statements require qualifiers.

| Fails | Passes |
|-------|--------|
| "Revenue will be $50M by Q4" | "Revenue is **projected** to be $50M by Q4" |
| "The feature will reduce churn" | "The feature is **expected** to reduce churn" |

**Fix:** Add "projected", "estimated", "expected", "designed to", "intended to"

---

**3. ASSUMPTION VISIBILITY**
Implicit assumptions that affect interpretation must be explicit.

| Fails | Passes |
|-------|--------|
| "The system scales linearly" | "The system scales linearly [assuming <1000 concurrent users]" |
| "Response time is 50ms" | "Response time is 50ms [under standard load conditions]" |

**Fix:** Add bracketed conditions: "[assuming X]", "[under conditions Y]", "[when Z]"

---

**4. AUTHORITATIVE-LOOKING UNVALIDATED DATA**
Tables with specific percentages and checkmarks look like measured data.

**Red flag:** Tables with specific numbers (89%, 95%, 100%) without sources

**Fix:** Add "(guess)", "(est.)", "?" to numbers. Add explicit warning: "PROJECTED VALUES - NOT MEASURED"

---

### Data Quality Checks (Complementary: Points 5-7)

**5. DATA CONSISTENCY**
Scan for conflicting numbers, dates, or facts within the document.

**Red flag:** "500 users" in one section, "750 users" in another

**Fix:** Reconcile conflicts or explicitly note the discrepancy with explanation.

---

**6. IMPLICIT CAUSATION**
Claims that imply causation without evidence.

**Red flag:** "Shorter prompts improve response quality" (plausible but unproven)

**Fix:** Reframe as hypothesis: "Shorter prompts MAY improve response quality (hypothesis, not validated)"

---

**7. FUTURE STATE AS PRESENT**
Describing planned/hoped outcomes as if already achieved.

**Red flag:** "The system processes 10,000 requests per second" (when it hasn't been built)

**Fix:** Use future/conditional: "The system is DESIGNED TO process..." or "TARGET: 10,000 rps"

---

### Verification Routing (Points 8-9)

**8. TEMPORAL COHERENCE**
Document dates and timestamps must be internally consistent and plausible.

| Fails | Passes |
|-------|--------|
| "Last Updated: December 2024" (when current is 2026) | "Last Updated: January 2026" |
| v1.0.0 dated 2024-12-23, v1.1.0 dated 2024-12-20 | Versions in chronological order |

**Sub-checks:**
1. Document date vs current date
2. Internal chronology (versions, events in order)
3. Reference freshness ("current", "now", "today" claims)

**Fix:** Update dates, add "as of [date]" qualifiers, flag stale claims

---

**9. EXTERNALLY VERIFIABLE CLAIMS**
Specific numbers that could be fact-checked should be flagged for verification.

| Type | Example | Risk |
|------|---------|------|
| Pricing | "Costs ~$0.005 per call" | API pricing changes |
| Statistics | "Papers average 15-30 equations" | May be wildly off |
| Rates/ratios | "40% of researchers use X" | Needs citation |
| Competitor claims | "No competitor offers Y" | May be outdated |

**Fix options:**
1. Add source with date
2. Add uncertainty marker
3. Route to HITL or external search
4. Generalize ("low cost" instead of "$0.005")

---

## The Verification Hierarchy

```
Claim Extracted --> Does Source of Truth Exist?
                           |
           +---------------+---------------+
           YES                             NO
           |                               |
   Tier 1: Automated              Tier 2: HITL
   Consistency & Verification     Two-Round Verification
           |                               |
   PASS / BLOCK                   Round A → Round B → APPROVE / REJECT
```

### Tier 1: Automated Verification

**A. Internal Consistency**
- Figure vs. Text contradictions

… (truncated)