git:20260531.2269faf to git:20260617.caeb520

48 added, 9 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: contention-layer

- description: When two skills or agents produce conflicting verdicts on the same output, reads the conflict as a signal rather than an error and harvests new skill candidates. Routes skills born from contention to fh-meta if they are meta-layer, to commons plugin if project-agnostic, or to field harvest if domain-specific. Triggered by "two skills conflict", "they produce different conclusions", "contention-layer", "contention harvest".

+ description: When two skills, agents, or independent research tracks produce conflicting verdicts on the same output, reads the conflict as a signal rather than an error and harvests new skill candidates or insight deltas. Also accepts a Dual-Track Grounding conflict — an open-frontier research track vs an internally-grounded recall track disagreeing — as a research-layer partial analogue of Non-Model Ground (the grounded track is a time-decorrelated anchor, not a non-model one). Routes skills born from contention to fh-meta if they are meta-layer, to commons plugin if project-agnostic, or to field harvest if domain-specific. Triggered by "two skills conflict", "they produce different conclusions", "contention-layer", "contention harvest", "open vs grounded contradiction", "research tracks disagree".

user-invocable: true

allowed-tools: ["Read", "Bash", "Grep", "Write"]

model: sonnet

category: Ecosystem Growth

---

# contention-layer — Contention Harvest + New Skill Routing

When two skills conflict, **harvest the signal** instead of discarding one. Find the validation angle that neither skill addressed, and onboard new skill candidates into the FH ecosystem according to their routing path.

> Philosophical basis: Cognitive dissonance in humans is not a failure but a core asset — the ability to hold contradictions created culture. In the FH ecosystem, conflict is the signal from which new skills are born.

## Triggers

```

/contention-layer # analyze current conflict situation

/contention-layer --skills A B # specify two skills for contention analysis

```

- Phrase triggers: "two skills conflict" · "weird when used together" · "they produce different conclusions" · "contention harvest" · "contention"

+ Phrase triggers: "two skills conflict" · "weird when used together" · "they produce different conclusions" · "contention harvest" · "contention" · "open vs grounded contradiction" · "research tracks disagree" · "dual-track grounding **+ conflict/disagree/contradict**" (the phrase "dual-track grounding" alone collides with `phantom-quench` on the word "grounding" — measured Step-0.5 probe #3, 2026-06-17; it fires this skill only when a conflict word co-occurs)

+ ```

+ /contention-layer --tracks open=<deep-research result> grounded=<memory/CATALOG recall> # Dual-Track Grounding

+ ```

## Step 1. Collect Conflict Points

- Record clearly which skills conflicted on which output, and in which direction.

+ Record clearly which sources conflicted on which output, and in which direction. The conflicting

+ **sources** may be two skills/agents, or two independent **research tracks** (Dual-Track Grounding).

```

- Conflicting skill A: {skill name} — verdict: {conclusion}

- Conflicting skill B: {skill name} — verdict: {conclusion}

- Conflicting output: {TC / diagnostic report / design document / ...}

+ Conflicting source A: {skill name / "open-frontier research"} — verdict: {conclusion}

+ Conflicting source B: {skill name / "internally-grounded recall"} — verdict: {conclusion}

+ Conflicting output: {TC / diagnostic report / design document / a factual claim / ...}

Conflict point: {which item, by which criteria difference}

```

**Conflict type classification**:

- `Criteria conflict`: Same item evaluated by different criteria (e.g., coverage 50% = Pass vs Fail)

- `Scope conflict`: A includes, B excludes a certain domain

- `Order conflict`: Same goal approached with different preconditions

- `Philosophy conflict`: The measurement purpose itself differs (e.g., risk reduction vs coverage maximization)

+ - `Track conflict` (Dual-Track Grounding): The same claim is asserted by an **open-frontier** track

+ (deep-research / WebSearch over external sources) and contradicted — or unsupported — by an

+ **internally-grounded** track (memory / CATALOG / past-session recall). The disagreement is the signal.

+ ### Step 1-b. Dual-Track Grounding — Non-Model Ground at the research layer

+ When the input is two research tracks rather than two skills, the contention IS the mechanism: two

+ **time-decorrelated** anchors disagreeing exposes the agreement-bias gap that judge-only synthesis

+ hides (a single track, however strong, can be confidently wrong with nothing to contradict it). This is

+ a research-layer **partial analogue of Non-Model Ground** (`[[fh_propagation_nonmodel_ground]]`) — the

+ grounded track is a **time-decorrelated, provenance-bearing** anchor (written in a prior session against

+ recorded sources, so the present session's agreement-bias cannot silently overwrite it). It is **not** a

+ true non-model anchor: memory/CATALOG are model-written, so the independence is temporal + provenance,

+ not lineage. The honest bias-reduction is that contradicting a provenance-bearing past claim **forces an

+ explicit source check** (the challenger-verify pairing below) rather than a silent overwrite.

+ ```

+ Open track (frontier): deep-research / WebSearch — what the external world currently asserts

+ Grounded track (internal): memory + CATALOG + past-session recall — what we already established

+ → AGREE : low signal (corroboration) — log confidence, no harvest

+ → DISAGREE : HIGH signal — the open track may be newer (our claim is stale → memory-hygiene),

+ OR our grounded claim is right and the frontier is noise (→ a publishable delta).

+ Direction is a judged call; pair it with challenger-verify-before-act (source-verify

+ BEFORE rewriting either side — never let recency alone win) and route to harvest.

+ → UNSUPPORTED: the open track asserts what the grounded track has no record of, and back-trace

+ (phantom-quench) finds no source → treat as Phantom, not as a new fact.

+ ```

+ Dispatch shape: the two tracks run as independent calls (deep-research ∥ grounded recall — agent-composer

+ can parallelize), then their outputs enter Step 2 as source A / source B. The harvest gate below is unchanged.

## Step 2. Contention Essence — Harvest Gate

Determine whether the conflict will be resolved by **exclusion** or converted to **harvest**.

```

Question 1: Did the two skills produce different verdicts because they had different validation angles?

→ Yes: Harvest candidate ✅

→ No (bug / malfunction): Exclude → escalate to install-doctor

Question 2: If that tension is resolved, can it be absorbed into one of the existing skills?

→ Possible: Recommend improving existing skill (no new skill needed)

→ Not possible (new angle): New skill candidate ✅

Question 3: Can the candidate skill be transplanted to any project without a specific domain?

→ Transplantable: Route to commons plugin ✅

→ Domain-specific: Field harvest signal

```

Harvest Gate pass criteria: Question 1 ✅ + Question 2 not possible ✅ = new skill birth verdict

## Step 3. Placement Routing

| Skill nature | Routing path | Criterion |

|---|---|---|

| Harness engineering · install/audit/validation/onboarding | `fh-meta` candidate | Skills that operate/diagnose FH itself |

| Project-independent · transplantable anywhere · domain-agnostic | `commons` plugin | Universal utilities like validation angles or analysis frameworks |

| Specific domain/team/language/tech-stack | `field harvest` signal | Field team decision domain — not included in FH |

```

Routing conclusion:

New skill name candidate: {name}

Routing path: {fh-meta / commons / field}

Rationale: {1-line nature verdict}

```

## Step 4. Generate SKILL.md Draft

After confirming routing path, auto-generate a new skill SKILL.md skeleton.

```markdown

---

name: {slug}

description: {one line — include trigger keywords, no marketing language}

user-invocable: true

allowed-tools: [...]

model: sonnet

category: {category}

origin: contention-layer # contention birth history

contention-parents: [{skill A}, {skill B}]

---

# {skill name} — {subtitle}

{One sentence capturing the validation angle discovered from contention}

## Triggers

...

## Step 1. ...

```

After generating skeleton: **"I will place this draft at {path}. Shall I proceed?"** — confirmation gate.

## Output Format

```

[Contention Harvest Report]

- Conflicting skills: {A} vs {B}

- Conflict type: {Criteria / Scope / Order / Philosophy}

+ Conflicting sources: {A} vs {B}

+ Conflict type: {Criteria / Scope / Order / Philosophy / Track}

Harvest Gate: Pass / Fail

└ Reason: {1 line}

New skill candidate: {name or none}

Routing path: {fh-meta / commons / field / n/a}

- Next action: {generate draft / exclude / recommend improving existing skill}

+ Track-conflict resolution: {memory-hygiene / publishable-delta / phantom / n/a} # only for Track conflicts (Step 1-b)

+ Next action: {generate draft / exclude / recommend improving existing skill / route track-conflict terminal}

```

## Done When

```

All steps 1–4 completed

+ [Contention Harvest Report] output (Harvest Gate Pass/Fail stated)

+ If new skill candidate exists: SKILL.md skeleton generated + user confirmation gate complete

+ If no new skill candidate: "Exclude / recommend improving existing skill" stated and exit

+ + If Track conflict (Step 1-b): terminal stated — memory-hygiene (stale grounded claim) OR

+ publishable-delta (frontier was noise, our claim holds) OR phantom-quench (unsupported frontier

+ assertion). A track conflict resolving to a terminal is NOT an "exclude" — it is a routed outcome.

```

Verdict: PASS (Harvest Gate Pass — new skill skeleton generated or no candidates confirmed) | CONDITIONAL_PASS (candidates found, user confirmation pending) | FAIL (Harvest Gate Fail — collision unresolvable, no new skill justified) | ESCALATE (role boundary ambiguous, requires human judgment)