---

name: contention-layer 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 — including a Dual-Track Grounding conflict (open-frontier track vs internally-grounded recall track disagreeing). Routes skills born from contention to fh-meta (meta-layer), the commons plugin (project-agnostic), or field harvest (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" · "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 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 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.

Reuse — need-driven scaffold: this skeleton is also the template for Full-Harness Mode's field-asset scaffold (auto_project_mapping.md §6). There the entry is not a conflict but a skill-worthy recurring pattern (3+ reps · #skill-candidate · field-harvest); set origin: field-scaffold and replace contention-parents with the source pattern pointer. An agent variant emits .claude/agents/{name}.md (name/description/tools + self-contained prompt) instead of this SKILL.md frontmatter. The field team fills domain content; FH only scaffolds.

---
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 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}
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)