kleros-curate

# Kleros Curate

Kleros Curate is a decentralized verification system for exclusive, policy-driven registries. Registries are
governed by a policy document stored on IPFS — every submission is judged against that policy, and jurors
consult it if a dispute arises.

**The deposit/challenge/arbitration cycle:**

1. A submitter proposes an item and locks a submission deposit as a pledge that the item complies with the
   registry policy.
2. The item enters a challenge window (configurable per registry, typically days to weeks). Anyone can review
   submissions during this window.
3. If nobody challenges within the window, the item is accepted and the submitter's deposit is returned in
   full — compliant submissions carry no permanent inclusion cost.
4. If a challenger believes the submission violates the policy, they lock a challenge deposit and open a
   Kleros dispute. Impartial Kleros jurors read the policy and render a verdict.
5. The winner captures the loser's deposit as a bounty. The two-sided stake mechanism rewards accuracy and
   discourages frivolous challenges in both directions.

**Why use Curate:**

- **Earn by curating**: users can profit by finding non-compliant entries in challengeable registries. In
  Stake Curate especially, successful challengers can recover their challenge deposit and win the item's stake.
- **Launch your own verification market**: projects can create a Curate list for almost any verifiable
  standard, define their own policy, deposits, challenge windows, arbitrator/court, and governance. The result
  is a fast, low-overhead registry that can power a public Curate view or a custom frontend.

**Why onchain-first matters:**

Deposit amounts, arbitration costs, MetaEvidence URIs, and challenge windows are all live onchain state —
they change when registry governors update parameters. Any cached or estimated value is a liability: an agent
that submits the wrong deposit amount will have its transaction revert. Always read live values before acting.

**Three contract flavors:**

- **Light Curate (LGTCR)** — `LightGeneralizedTCR`: optimistic challenge window, native-token deposits, the most
  widely deployed flavor. Used by the majority of Curate registries across Ethereum, Gnosis, and Sepolia.
- **Stake Curate (PGTCR)** — `PermanentGTCR`: permanent ERC20 stake (not returned on item removal),
  Goldsky subgraph as primary data source, different status model (Submitted / Reincluded / Disputed / Absent
  + withdrawal flow). Identified by PGTCR-specific hallmark read calls (see `references/stake-curate.md`).
- **Scout** — LGTCR contracts on Gnosis, specialized for 4 well-known registries (contract address tags,
  token lists, address tags, CDN mappings). Scout IS an overlay on LGTCR — it is not a separate contract
  type. Working with Scout always requires both `references/scout-registries.md` (Scout-specific context)
  and `references/light-curate.md` (LGTCR contract operations).

## Non-negotiables

These rules apply across all Curate flavors. They are always in context; reference files may not repeat them.

- **Never guess / invent / approximate** amounts, addresses, schemas, or parameters.
- **Onchain state + onchain logs are the source of truth** for deposits, arbitration cost, challenge deposits, appeal status, and MetaEvidence URI.
- **Never assume a "standard token schema"** — only the current MetaEvidence for that registry is authoritative.
- **Never rewrite the schema**: `item.json.columns` must be copied verbatim from MetaEvidence; only `values` is dynamic.
- **Never upload or submit half-baked artifacts**: no malformed JSON, broken MetaEvidence, placeholder values, unsupported field types, or unreachable policy files.
- **Never author unsupported MetaEvidence field types**: for URL fields use `type: "link"`, not `url`; validate every `metadata.columns[].type` before upload.
- **Production registries need a logo**: do not deploy a production list with missing `metadata.logoURI`.
- **Strongly prefer PDF policy documents** for registry policies. Use a non-PDF policy only after the user
  explicitly accepts the review and compatibility risk.
- **Never include "typical ranges" or estimates** for deposits or fees — only report live-read values.
- **`eth_getCode` before declaring any address is or isn't a contract.**

## Which Curate flavor are you using?

**Step 1 — Keyword scan (zero cost)**

- Mentions "Verify Your List", list verification, list-of-lists, frontend visibility, or making a deployed
  registry discoverable
  → **Verification target is Light Curate (LGTCR)** on all three supported networks
  → Read `references/verify-your-list.md` AND `references/light-curate.md`; do not ask the generic flavor
  question for the verification target. Detect the flavor of the registry being listed separately only when
  the live verification policy makes it relevant.

- Mentions "Scout", "token list", "address tags", "CDN"
  → **Scout** (overlay on Light Curate — LGTCR contracts on Gnosis)
  → Read `references/scout-registries.md` AND `references/light-curate.md` (both required; Scout adds context on top of LGTCR operations)

- Mentions "PGTCR", "Stake Curate", "PermanentGTCR", "Goldsky"
  → **Stake Curate (PGTCR)**
  → Read `references/stake-curate.md`

- Mentions "Curate", "LGTCR", "LightGeneralizedTCR", "Light Curate", "addItem", "registry", or no flavor hint
  → **Light Curate (LGTCR)** (also the default)
  → Read `references/light-curate.md`

**Step 2 — Ambiguous ("Curate" with no flavor hint)**

- **Interactive session**: ask one question — "Which Curate flavor? Light Curate (optimistic challenge window, native-token deposits), Stake Curate (permanent ERC20 stake, Goldsky subgraph), or Scout (4 Gnosis registries for contract/token tagging)?"

- **One-shot / non-interactive**: default to Light Curate, then progressively correct:
  - If user provides a contract address: check if it matches one of the 4 known Scout registry addresses → load Scout overlay (r