# Review Fold > Classify and quotient current review findings, tests, incidents, and other witnessed falsifiers while preserving original provenance. Decide current applicability and whether each proposed law is entailed by the accepted Goal, a strengthening, preference, new requirement, or underdetermined. With enclosing write authority, persist only accepted entailed witnesses in the Review Fold counterexample corpus; recompute current applicability, observational classes, recurrence, and family hypotheses from current evidence; Actuating owns architecture, repair, review credit, and closure. - Skill: `tkersey/review-fold` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 10 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tkersey/review-fold` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tkersey/review-fold/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tkersey (https://skillmd.com/u/tkersey) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tkersey/review-fold --- # Review Fold ## Mission Turn owner-issued falsification evidence and durable admitted witnesses into one bounded current analytical fold: ```text current owner evidence + accepted Goal + exact current Git head + projected counterexample corpus + optional current elimination-claim excerpt -> facts, law authority, applicability, observational classes, blockers -> accepted counterexample capture when authorized -> no implementation mutation or architecture authority ``` `$review-fold` owns evidence classification, Goal-law relation, observational quotienting, and semantic admission to the counterexample corpus. `$actuating` owns final family synthesis, post-elimination revocation, construction selection, mutation, review credit, and closure. CAS, tests, verifiers, incidents, migrations, and providers remain authoritative for what they observed. The corpus preserves only the narrower semantic fact that an exact witness was accepted as falsifying an accepted law under an exact Goal and original subject. ## Input ```yaml review_fold_input: goal: repository: base: current_head: corpus_write_authorized: true | false # enclosing task; omitted means false current_elimination_claim: null | { law: family: validity_horizon: reconsideration_falsifier: disposition: eliminated issued_head: } source_batches: - owner: exact_receipt_or_output: findings_or_failure: witness_subject: repository: git_head_or_build: schema_or_environment: input_state_or_trace: relevant_prior_owner_evidence: [] projected_counterexamples: [] ``` CAS-derived evidence requires the exact terminal CAS receipt. Historical tests, incidents, and failures retain their original subjects. Project the Review Fold counterexample basis before classification when available; do not treat stored rows as currently applicable without re-evaluation. Read [counterexample-corpus.md](references/counterexample-corpus.md) before the first corpus projection or capture in a workflow. ## Effect authority `corpus_write_authorized` must follow the enclosing task's actual effect scope; review pressure and corpus ownership cannot grant it. It is always false in Actuating `analyze`. Adjudication and available read-only projection remain permitted without capture. Do not repair bindings, provision a tool, or write a source-memory note to evade that boundary. Return accepted in-context evidence and empty `captured_ids` when writing is unauthorized; do not claim persistence or block unrelated analysis solely because capture was intentionally skipped. ## Minimal law ```text claim != observed fact observed fact != current liability witness subject != current applicability subject reviewer-desired property != accepted Goal law current liability != observational class observational class != final family stored counterexample != current applicability stored counterexample != current family or architecture same-law after elimination != another patch instruction Review Fold != mutation authority ``` ## Law-authority classification For every proposed governing law, choose: ```text entailed exact evidence shows the property follows from accepted Goal authority strengthening beneficial property not required by the current Goal preference design preference without a current correctness obligation new-requirement legitimate property requiring new source or user authority underdetermined current Goal evidence cannot decide ``` Record an `entailment_basis` or `non_entailment_basis`. ```text entailed + validated current, task-relevant falsifier -> accepted strengthening -> follow-up, non-blocking preference -> rejected new-requirement -> follow-up with authority_action: reopen-goal underdetermined -> blocked with authority_action: seek-authority ``` Reviewer consensus does not manufacture entailment. Adjudication never rewrites an owner-issued `findings` verdict into `clean`. Preserve a judgment challenge's positive claim, earliest failed premise, and claim-strength consequence in the existing witness handoff. Distinguish an observed behavior violation from an omitted coverage path or an unsupported proof claim. Missing proof alone is not evidence that the behavior is false; it may falsify an accepted evidence or truthfulness obligation. Apply the same law-authority test before admission and let Actuating decide the response. A workflow fingerprint binds identity, not reviewer access to parent-only premises; preserve material evidence-access limitations in the existing horizon. Do not infer a new correctness liability from an unavailable premise. ## Counterexample admission Review findings, failed assertions, differential mismatches, and verification failures use the same admission decision. A CAS receipt establishes what was reported; a test result establishes its recorded execution and disagreement, not the authority of its expectation or a production defect. Before admission, establish each witness independently: 1. **Obligation.** Cite the accepted outcome, compatibility contract, invariant, protocol, or mandatory verification condition and its required observation. Derived obligations need a traceable basis, not a verbatim user sentence; preferences and optional strengthening do not become laws through severity. 2. **Validity.** Trace the actual candidate, caller preconditions, permitted operations, environment, and observed consequence. Establish a feasible violation or the exact unmet mandatory proof obligation. Use the smallest decisive source trace, existing verifier result, or authorized reproduction. An expected result needs authority independent of the allegation: a test that merely asserts the reviewer's desired behavior is not an independent oracle. 3. **Relevance.** Bind that evidence to the current head and accepted Goal. Compare the base when delta causality matters. Neither an unchanged file nor a pre-existing defect is exempt when a Goal-wide obligation applies. Historical provenance alone establishes no current liability; require current applicability. 4. **Countercase.** Inspect the strongest readily available source evidence that could refute or narrow the finding: existing enforcement, actual call paths, companion changes, caller obligations, mitigations, or an applicable authorized exception. A named guard, opaque type, passing suite, or reviewer consensus is not a defense without showing how it defeats this witness. Equally, malformed input at a covered trust boundary is not out of scope merely because it is invalid; safe rejection may be the obligation. A rare but demonstrated violation remains real. For failed checks, inspect the expectation's source authority, fixture preconditions, actual artifact and environment, and the assertion or execution stage that failed. Attribute the supported defect to the implementation, oracle, fixture, or harness; an obsolete implementation-detail assertion is not a preserved law. Checker changes need independent justification and preserved verification of every still-required obligation, or explicit authority retiring that obligation. Never change expected results merely to agree with the candidate. Agreement among implementations sharing one assumption is not independent validation of that assumption. Preserve the exact failed result. Rejecting its diagnosis does not create a pass or waive mandatory verification; obtain fresh applicable evidence after correction. A check that could not run leaves evidence unavailable, not a behavioral falsifier. A resource failure within an accepted workload/budget can itself be a violation. A later passing retry does not erase an unexplained failure. Keep uncertainty in its dependent claim; do not label a failure flaky or environmental without evidence. Settle the decisive premise, then stop. Reuse decisive execution evidence rather than reproducing it ceremonially; routine expected-red implementation work needs no separate investigation or invented family. An obvious source trace can suffice; do not require an executable reproduction, fabricate a defense, or demand proof that no possible bug exists. Respect enclosing effect authority and frozen-head rules. An unavailable or unsafe experiment leaves an evidence gap, not authority to mutate the candidate or invent a result. Failed reproduction alone does not refute a possible interleaving. Reuse an unchanged decision and its evidence; reconsider only when material new evidence changes it. No extra reviewer, lane, recursive challenge loop, mandatory report, acceptance quota, or rejection quota. Admit only the supported claim after this examination. Separate established validity, its consequence for a mandatory completion obligation, and any proposed repair. A valid witness proves neither the suggested fix nor the whole causal family. Validate members before grouping; one proven consequence cannot admit an unvalidated sibling. Preserve the original allegation when accepting a narrower claim. Do not manufacture a replacement finding to save a refuted one; a genuinely new issue needs its own evidence and provenance. Use existing dispositions: `accepted` for a validated relevant violation; `rejected` for a refuted, already-satisfied, unrelated, or preference-only claim; `follow-up` for an unrequired improvement or new requirement. Keep a material unknown in `unresolved_questions`; use `blocked` only for the claim or action whose required decision depends on it. Unknown is neither acceptance nor exoneration, and an unmet mandatory verification condition is not downgraded merely because no runtime failure was reproduced. Record the decisive evidence, countercase result, and any limiting premise in the existing witness handoff, not a second packet. An all-accepted wave is legitimate when every claim earns it. ## Output ```yaml review_fold: current_head: evidence_horizon: complete_for_claims: true | false missing_sources: [] counterexample_corpus: projected_ids: [] captured_ids: [] blocked_sources: [] classes: - class_id: class_kind: observational law: law_provenance: goal | public-contract | type-invariant | protocol | test-law | derived | hypothesized law_authority: entailed | strengthening | preference | new-requirement | underdetermined authority_basis: authority_action: none | follow-up | reject | reopen-goal | seek-authority law_boundary: current_owner_set: [] owner_status: canonical | distributed | absent | contested | unknown discrepancy: excess | deficit | incoherence | partiality | misbinding severity: critical | high | medium | low disposition: accepted | rejected | blocked | follow-up post_elimination_relation: none | same-claim | same-law-different-family | outside-horizon | different-law | unknown post_elimination_basis: witnesses: - reported_claim: observed_fact: # established only; omit when unresolved admission_basis: # decisive evidence, countercase result, limiting premise # Optional, only when the source challenges a positive judgment: challenged_judgment: earliest_failed_premise: claim_strength_consequence: witness_subject: repository: git_head_or_build: schema_or_environment: input_state_or_trace: detection_boundary: evidence_ref: current_applicability: subject_head: status: still-present | transformed-applicable | already-excluded | not-comparable | unknown basis: independence_basis: family_hypothesis: predicate_or_generator: domain: predicted_sibling_classes: [] prediction_basis: claim_strength: proved | exhaustive-finite | bounded | property-tested | sampled | hypothesized | unknown family_basis: quotient_basis: recurrence: status: first-observed | recurring | unknown prior_evidence_refs: [] causal_hypothesis: unresolved_questions: [] handoff: ``` Class IDs derive from law, boundary, discrepancy, and supported family hypothesis—not attempt, thread, file, reviewer, current owner, or proposed patch. Counterexample IDs derive from repository, Goal digest, accepted law, original witness subject, and observed fact. ## Procedure 1. Project the repository counterexample basis and preserve its exact IDs and source references. An absent local store is not proof of complete history. 2. Preserve every current and historical witness's original subject. 3. Separate reported claim, established fact, suggested repair, and transport status; do not copy an allegation into `observed_fact` as proof of itself. 4. Attribute the proposed law and classify its Goal authority. 5. Apply Counterexample admission to each proposed witness, establishing validity, current applicability, Goal relevance, and the decisive countercase result. 6. Assign disposition from that evidence; keep unresolved premises explicit. 7. Name detection boundaries and exact owner evidence supporting the disposition. 8. Quotient only independently adjudicated witnesses whose law, authority, applicability, discrepancy, and causal evidence agree. 9. Permit one class to span owner sites when distributed ownership may be the defect. 10. State the family only as a hypothesis. Distinguish predicted siblings from observed witnesses. 11. Compare exact prior owner evidence and projected counterexamples to classify recurrence. Incomplete history yields `unknown`, never `first-observed`. 12. If an eliminated claim is supplied, classify exact relation to its law, family, validity horizon, and reconsideration falsifier. Do not revoke or preserve the claim; Actuating owns that effect. 13. When `corpus_write_authorized` is true, capture each independent witness that passed Counterexample admission, whose current applicability is `still-present` or `transformed-applicable`, law authority is `entailed`, and disposition is `accepted`. Otherwise retain accepted evidence in context. 14. Return the fold and corpus IDs directly. A clean source may return an empty `classes` list and performs no capture. ## Counterexample corpus boundary The owner definition is: ```text review-fold/counterexample-corpus ``` The repo-local append-only store is: ```text .ledger/review-fold/counterexamples/events.jsonl ``` Persist only immutable semantic admissions and provenance: ```text repository and Goal digest accepted law and authority basis source-owner references original witness subject observed fact and detection boundary evidence and independence basis ``` Never persist as authority: ```text current applicability observational class or final family causal generator or recurrence status canonical owner, cut, carrier, or repair review credit, candidate state, or closure ``` These are current projections. Duplicate reviewer reports of one semantic witness do not become independent counterexamples. Store bounded summaries and exact references, not transcripts, logs, credentials, secrets, or suggested patches. A capture failure does not rewrite the source evidence or make the current fold false. Report it as an incomplete historical horizon. Actuating may not use absence from that horizon to claim first occurrence, disjointness, or elimination. ## Current applicability Only `still-present` and `transformed-applicable` establish current pressure. `already-excluded` is historical explanation. `not-comparable` and `unknown` cannot establish current recurrence, family coverage, or a post-elimination falsifier. A corpus row proves only that its original witness was admitted under its recorded Goal and subject. Re-evaluate validity and relevance before using it against current code; a spurious historical admission gains no current authority. Preserve the historical admission and provenance rather than rewriting them. ## Evidence horizon Use every currently available owner source relevant to the Goal, including the counterexample basis projection. When evidence needed to distinguish first occurrence from recurrence is unavailable: ```text recurrence.status = unknown ``` Do not infer `first-observed`, `recurring`, disjointness, or family completeness from absence in an incomplete corpus, memory, or summary. ## Observational classes Group witnesses only when evidence supports: ```text same proposed law same law-authority classification compatible applicability and discrepancy plausible shared causal relation ``` Observed witnesses support a family hypothesis; they do not define its complete extension. Independent witnesses differ materially in input partition, state or transition, admission path, producer or consumer, external incident, generator, or temporal trace. Duplicate reports, copied tests, repeated prose, and several failures from one root execution are not independent. ## Post-elimination relation When the input supplies an active `eliminated` claim: ```text same accepted law, inside the validity horizon, with exact evidence that the witness belongs to the claimed family or satisfies its reconsideration falsifier -> same-claim same accepted law and horizon, with exact disjoint-family evidence -> same-law-different-family same accepted law outside the horizon -> outside-horizon different accepted law -> different-law insufficient authority, applicability, family, or horizon evidence -> unknown or non-current ``` A strengthening or preference does not falsify the current Goal's claim. A new requirement reopens Goal authority rather than retroactively falsifying the old Goal. Review Fold reports the relation. Actuating revokes and adjudicates only a current `entailed` `same-claim` falsifier. ## Guardrails - Do not choose a final family, frontier, cut, owner, carrier, repair, architecture, next action, review credit, publication, or closure. - Do not turn suggested patches into facts. - Do not treat reviewer consensus as Goal authority. - Do not broaden the Goal or label strengthening as a current blocker. - Do not rewrite historical provenance. - Do not define a family as its observed examples. - Do not infer recurrence or post-elimination relation without exact evidence. - Do not persist a Review Fold, class registry, family registry, or current applicability state. - Do not copy full CAS receipts; retain exact source references. - Do not treat process exit as a semantic verdict. ## Handoff Return exact evidence references, corpus IDs, law-authority classifications, current applicability, observational classes, post-elimination relations, family hypotheses, sibling predictions when evidenced, recurrence status, decisive admission or refutation evidence, evidence gaps, and unresolved questions. Actuating decides what those facts require.