bias-check

Bias Check Skill

Pre-research and pre-decision bias review.

Preflight: Read target canvas file(s) before any Write/Edit

Hard rule. Before issuing Write or Edit against any .claude/canvas/*.yml, use the Read tool on that file in this session. Claude Code's Read-before-Write check requires the Read tool specifically — cat/head/grep via Bash do NOT satisfy it.

Edit vs Write — different cost profiles (verified 2026-05-14):

• Edit (exact-string replacement): Read with limit: 1 satisfies the check at ~50 tokens. State-tracking is per-file, not per-byte — subsequent Edit calls work anywhere in the file. Use this for partial updates against large canvas files (e.g., purpose.yml at 800+ lines).
• Write (full replacement): do a full Read first. Write obliterates the file; you should see what you're about to replace. The limit:1 shortcut is not appropriate here.

ID-bearing entries — scan the ID space before assigning (added 2026-05-15, v0.23.19): When adding a new component, opportunity, solution, or any other ID-bearing entry to a canvas file, run a Bash grep first to confirm the next ID in your prefix sequence is actually free:

grep "^  - id: <prefix>-" .claude/canvas/<file>.yml | sort -u

Replace <prefix> with the canvas's ID prefix (comp for landscape, opp for opportunities, sol for solutions, ht for human-tasks, etc.). Then pick the next free integer. validate_canvas.py has a duplicate-ID check (lines 230-239) that catches the failure on CI, but a duplicate can persist in the working tree for days if CI isn't run between edit and discovery — see roadmap-repo corrections.md 2026-05-15 "Duplicate canvas ID created in landscape.yml" for the worked example.

Original failure mode: anti-pattern #7 instance #5, 2026-05-09 — agent conflated Bash head with the Read tool, lost ~14k tokens to a Write-fail → remedial-full-Read → re-Write loop. The limit:1 discipline (graduated 2026-05-14, v0.23.18) prevents the second-order cost where the agent correctly follows the rule but full-Reads every time. The ID-scan discipline (graduated 2026-05-15, v0.23.19) prevents the related class where the agent reads enough of the file to satisfy the Edit check but not enough to see existing ID assignments — kin to anti-pattern #8 (Stale State Read).

If this skill writes to multiple canvas files, register each one first (limit:1 for Edit-only paths; full Read for Write paths) AND ID-scan any prefix you intend to assign.

See CLAUDE.md Canvas writes — Read before Write for the canonical rule.

Workflow

1. Identify context: What stage (L0-L5)? What activity (research, decision, evaluation)?

1. Load stage-specific checklist from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/harness/cognitive-biases.md for the current scale.

1. For each bias on the checklist:
2. Is this bias likely active in the current situation? (Yes/No/Maybe)
3. If Yes/Maybe: What specific mitigation will be applied?
4. Document the assessment.

1. Check agent's own biases (from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/harness/cognitive-biases.md agent section):
2. Sycophancy: Am I agreeing with the user when evidence says otherwise?
3. Recency: Am I overweighting recent context over earlier evidence?
4. Pattern matching: Am I assuming this is like something I've seen before without checking?
5. Completionism: Am I filling gaps with speculation rather than acknowledging uncertainty?

1. Output bias briefing:

``` ## Bias Check: [Activity] Stage: [L0-L5]

### Active Risks | Bias | Risk Level | Mitigation | |------|-----------|------------| | ... | High/Med/Low | ... |

### Agent Self-Check

• Sycophancy: [OK/Risk]
• Recency: [OK/Risk]
• Pattern matching: [OK/Risk]
• Completionism: [OK/Risk]

### Proceed? [Yes / Yes with caution / Pause and address] ```

1. System-level bias diagnosis (Meza):

Before attributing resistance or poor outcomes to cognitive bias, check if the "bias" is actually a rational response to a badly designed system. Ask:

| Phase | System Question | If Yes: Fix the System, Not the Person | |-------|----------------|---------------------------------------| | Awareness | Does the person know the desired behavior? | Fix communication, not cognition | | Motivation | Does the system reward the desired behavior? | Fix incentives, not mindset | | Ability | Can the person realistically do it? | Fix resources/process, not training | | Reinforcement | Is the behavior sustained by the environment? | Fix feedback loops, not habits | | Sustainability | Can it persist without ongoing intervention? | Fix structure, not willpower |

If 2+ phases point to systemic causes, the primary intervention is system redesign, not individual debiasing. Update the bias briefing output above to flag the system-level root cause.

The 5 phases above are a systemic diagnostic inspired by behavioral design models (COM-B, Fogg Behavior Model), not a named framework. They are prompts for investigation, not rigid steps.

Source: Robert Meza (The Bias Gap — diagnostic tool, aimforbehavior.com). Not to be confused with Thaler & Sunstein's "Nudge" theory.

When to Surface This Skill

This skill should be triggered:

• Before any research activity (interviews, surveys, data analysis)
• Before significant decisions at any diamond scale
• At L5 market transitions: Before launch tier classification and go-to-market planning, check for optimism bias (overweighting positive signals), confirmation bias (seeking validation of "ready to ship"), and anchoring (fixating on initial positioning)
• When /mycelium:diamond-progress or /mycelium:diamond-assess detects bias-related gate failures

Canvas Output

Record bias check in .claude/canvas/opportunities.yml under bias_checks section with date, biases mitigated, and research design adjustments made.

Decision Log (MANDATORY per G-P4)

APPEND a ### Bias Check entry to .claude/harness/decision-log.md with: activity assessed, active bias risks found, mitigations applied, agent self-check results.

Theory Citations

• Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow (System 1/System 2)
• Shotton: The Choice Factory (behavioral biases in decision-making)
• Torres: Continuous Discovery Habits (bias in research)
• Robert Meza: The Bias Gap (systemic bias reframing -- when "bias" is a rational response to a badly designed system)