contention-layer

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.