# Gate Adjudication And Folds > Load when a cross-model lens verdict has landed for a doctrine change in this repo and you must decide fold, reject, or stop — including when two lenses propose opposite fixes for one finding, when one lens keeps producing must-fixes after the others hold PROCEED, or when a finding asserts runtime or tool semantics. - Skill: `f-e-u-e-r/gate-adjudication-and-folds` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add f-e-u-e-r/gate-adjudication-and-folds` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/f-e-u-e-r/gate-adjudication-and-folds/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: F-e-u-e-r (https://skillmd.com/u/f-e-u-e-r) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/f-e-u-e-r/gate-adjudication-and-folds --- # Gate Adjudication and Folds Canonical verdict rules: `skills/cross-model-review/SKILL.md` (findings are claims, §3; the loop is bounded, §4). This file pins the adjudication patterns the 2026-07-29/30 campaigns used, each with its public record. On disagreement, the canon skill wins. ## Fold discipline - Reproduce a finding against the actual file/repo before folding it. - Fold commits are named `Fold gate rN: ` — single-PR campaigns prefix the target, e.g. `Fold #91 gate r1: …` — and state which lens produced each item and why the fix is right (see `6fa6154`, `5fa241b`, `83a038d`, `1560b97`). - Your own folds are attack surface for the NEXT round: #90's gate caught the staged-diff gate's circular trigger, a defect an earlier fold itself introduced (the catch is listed in #90's body; the fold-introduced attribution is session-recorded). Do not close on a round whose folds no lens has seen, except under the bounded-loop close below, where exactly that residual is disclosed by name. ## Rejections carry in-repo counter-evidence - A reviewer finding you reject gets a recorded counter-fact in the fold commit and PR body. #90's body records the aggregate — "7 findings rejected with in-repo counter-evidence"; the two worked examples below are session-recorded, their counter-facts re-derived in-repo 2026-07-30: - a lens called `→` a banned glyph — rejected by reading checks.py's banned class (invisible/bidi/Tag-Block only; U+2192 is not in it) and counting occurrences on main (plentiful: 107 hits in `skills/*/SKILL.md` at the pre-#90 main); - a lens called a line over-wide — rejected with the character count (78; the house norm counts characters, not bytes). - No counter-evidence found = it is not a rejection; it is still an open finding. ## Runtime-semantics findings get EXECUTED verification - When doctrine text asserts what a runtime does, execute it before the claim ships. Precedent chain on #96: the draft said the bracket form "silently reads empty" — execution shows `os.environ["X"]` raises KeyError; `.get()` returns `None`; an unguarded shell `$X` expands empty (r1 converged must-fix + r2 refinement, `6fa6154`, `5fa241b`). A lens also executed the ❌ example and showed `'\\n'` inside single quotes emits a literal backslash-n — the example could never produce the incident it described. - Rule: a doctrine line stating tool/runtime behavior is a claim to verify by execution, not prose to wordsmith. This applies to YOUR folds too — the r2 refinement corrected an r1 fold's attribution. ## Opposite-fix convergence → adjudicate by the protected property - Two lenses converged on the SAME gap in #91 (the durable/ephemeral overlap for "gitignored but externally archived" paths) with OPPOSITE precedence fixes. Adjudication anchored on what the rule protects — a later reader's ability to resolve the citation — so check-ignore wins: an ignored working path is ephemeral even when an external archive preserves it; cite the archive itself. Recorded in PR #93's body, the fold commit `1560b97`, and #91's evaluation comment — the comment publicly states that the two lenses proposed opposite precedences. - Rule: when converged fixes conflict, derive the answer from the rule's protected property, not from either lens's framing — and record the adjudication where the next maintainer will read it. ## Terminal conditions - TRIPLE PROCEED: every lens PROCEED in the same round (#93 r2, #97 r3). The normal close. - Bounded-loop close (non-convergence): canon caps the loop and sends a non-converging gate to a human with the trail (cross-model-review §4 — on disagreement it wins). The house application, owner-set in the 2026-07-23 twelve-round campaign (PR #61 era) and re-applied in #90: a campaign may run past canon's 2–3-round cap only under the owner's standing campaign mandate; when one lens keeps producing must-fixes while the gate otherwise converges (#90's public record: grok PROCEED r5–r11, luna PROCEED r7/r9/r11, sol still finding last-mile items), declare the close condition before the terminal round (session-recorded for #90 at r8; the public record is the close itself), execute it, apply the final folds labeled `-unverified`, and put the close AND its named residuals in front of the owner — in the PR body's Review gate section and the campaign report (`83a038d`; #90 body). A close that leaves residuals is surfaced, never silent. - The two failure shapes this bounds: unbounded re-review (no terminal proof ever arrives) and silent early close (residue undisclosed). The bound plus named-residual disclosure avoids both. ## Done definition Every lens finding for the round is folded (commit cites it), rejected (counter-evidence recorded), or explicitly carried into the next round's packet; a terminal state was reached by one of the two closes; the PR body's "Review gate" section states the trajectory, the rejections, and any unverified residuals by name. ## When NOT to use this skill Pipeline mechanics (branching, CI, merge, comments) → `contribution-gate-playbook`. What the doctrine text itself must satisfy → `doctrine-change-conventions`. ## Provenance Distilled 2026-07-30 from the session transcript; verified same-day against PR #90/#93/#97 bodies, the #91/#96/#85 evaluation comments, and commits `6fa6154`/`5fa241b`/`83a038d`/`1560b97`. Session-recorded specifics (public anchors in parentheses): the `→`/78-char rejection details (#90's body carries the aggregate rejections line), the r8 close pre-declaration (the body carries the close itself), and the fold-introduced attribution of the circular trigger (the body lists the catch). The `→` occurrence count was re-run in-repo 2026-07-30. Re-verify: `git log --oneline --grep='Fold' -10` and the newest combined PR body's "Review gate" section.