AI agents remember things. Over weeks of conversations they accumulate facts:
you are 20, you love pizza, you live in Pasadena. But memory systems almost
never check whether those facts agree with each other. When a new memory
says "you are 21" and an old one says "you are 20", one of them is wrong —
stale entry, misheard sentence, upstream bug — and nobody notices.

I built contradiction-judge
(pip install contradiction-judge) to fix that. Feed it a JSON file of memory
entries; it returns every contradicting pair plus an arbitration suggestion
telling you which entry should win.

contradiction-judge check memory.json 
{ "entries": 2, "pairs_checked": 1, "contradictions": [ { "entry_a": "m1", "entry_b": "m2", "kind": "numeric", "engine": "rules", "explanation": "'I am 20 years old.' vs 'I am 21 years old.': person.age cannot be both 20.0 and 21.0.", "arbitration": { "strategy": "recency", "recommendation": "keep m2, drop or correct m1", "reason": "Both entries are timestamped; the newer record (m2) is more likely to be current." } } ] }

Two layers

Rules (stdlib only, zero dependencies). Numeric conflicts ("20 years old"
vs "21 years old", unit-aware: "240 months old" == "20 years old"), date
conflicts ("birthday May 5, 2006" vs "2006-06-01"), factual conflicts (name,
location), and polarity conflicts ("I love pizza" vs "I hate pizza", "I am a
student" vs "I am not a student").

A pluggable LLM judge hook for the subtle stuff rules can't see:

from contradiction_judge import check_memories, set_judge def gpt_judge(text_a, text_b): # call your model; return {"contradiction": bool, "explanation": str}  ... set_judge(gpt_judge) report = check_memories(entries) # semantic pairs also get judged

The hook only runs on pairs the rules did not flag, so you pay for LLM
calls only where they add value. (--hook module:func on the CLI.)

How it differs from memgovern

If you've seen my memgovern
project: that one is a governance framework — provenance tracking, source
trust levels, write policies, retention rules. It answers "should this
memory be trusted and kept?"

contradiction-judge is the auditor. It answers "do these memories
contradict each other, and which one should win?" — semantic
fact-contradiction detection with arbitration suggestions. Same roadmap
family (the LLM-judge idea came straight from memgovern's roadmap), but a
different job. Govern with memgovern, audit with contradiction-judge.

Design notes

  • Recency wins, by default. When both entries are timestamped, the newer record is recommended — facts change, and location or preference conflicts may reflect a genuine move rather than an error. Without timestamps, the pair is flagged for manual review.
  • CI-friendly: --fail exits 1 when any contradiction is found.
  • 15 smoke tests, all green before release.

On the roadmap: embedding-based topic alignment ("the Bay Area" vs
"San Francisco"), confidence scores, and an auto-fix mode that rewrites the
stale entry instead of just flagging it.

Repo: https://github.com/hahahahahahahahah6/contradiction-judge
PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/contradiction-judge/