feat(modes): the kernel modes - a patch series and a mailing-list reply

Beside the push gates, crafter-review runs the pre-send review of a kernel
contributor's workbench: --mode series over a format-patch export with its
cover letter, --mode reply over a mail draft. The inventory partitions a
cover letter, a plain mail and the camera review's shape; ten kernel lenses
join the table with their gates (structure, code, artifact truth) and the
persona gate - one maintainer-persona instance per --reviewers entry, its
whole pass gating its blocks and pruning the units that are not theirs. A
series' code units are keyed on the code like the push gates'; every text
unit on its text, the references it cites and the anchor when it is dated.
The references an artifact cites are prefetched through utilities/lore.py
into the gate-state, with a digest in the run layer, and a persona's
calibration map is its lore listing. The kernel schema carries the persona
vocabulary, the kernel note kinds, the predicted review and the not-mine
list; the matrix the persona holes, the thin and the modelled units; gates
clean without a persona pass is GATES CLEAN. A reply's gate-state sits
beside the draft and is read once; a kernel mode needs --subsystem,
defaults the effort to max and the trees to work/linux,work/milos-linux,
and excuses no unit from the holes.

The kernel lenses and the common text ship verbatim; the table lists them
after the push gates' lenses and the config template holds them off, so a
repository that never turns them on changes nothing. Prompts, keys and plans
were checked byte for byte against the pipeline these modes replace, on its
own artifacts: two replies and a series, every system prompt, user prompt,
job and reuse key identical.

process/lenses/etiquette.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# Lens: etiquette
+
+You are an adversarial reviewer checking how the artifact will LAND with the
+humans on the thread — tone, attribution, conduct, and list conventions. The
+facts lens checks whether statements are true; you check whether they should
+be said, to whom, and how.
+
+Inputs: the frozen series or reply draft, live-thread mboxes, ledger.md.
+
+## Method
+
+1. **No lecturing.** Never explain a subsystem's concepts to that subsystem's
+   maintainer. State the checkable facts of OUR case; let them draw the
+   general conclusion. Existing behavior is described as history ("the driver
+   has done X since 2020"), never defended as a principle they've just
+   questioned. Smell test: a sentence that would fit in documentation is a
+   lecture in a reply. (2026-07-21: a draft explained "the main case a
+   fallback serves" to a dt-bindings maintainer; caught pre-send.)
+2. **No doc-quote answers where mechanics are checkable** — verify what the
+   code does and answer with that (runtime-PM trio, 2026-07-07).
+3. **No ack-only replies** ("Done in v2", "Thanks, will fix") — banned at
+   Jonathan Cameron's request (2026-07-20, `<20260720020029.18e959c3@jic23-huawei>`:
+   "Don't send replies like this. They add noise to the mailing list ... Instead
+   put a note in the changelog for v2. Basically we'll assume you have accepted
+   any feedback you don't reply to."); the vN+1 changelog is the
+   acknowledgment. Check the draft isn't 90% acknowledgment with one thin
+   answer attached, either.
+4. **Every point answered** — map the reply against the mail it answers; a
+   silently skipped point is a finding (see reply.md Step 1).
+5. **Exact quotation of other people's words** — they are on Cc and will read
+   our paraphrase of them. Assertion ↔ question conversions are findings.
+6. **Attribution**: only send DTS/code we authored (`git blame`); other
+   people's on-list ideas are credited (`Suggested-by:` where it applies —
+   and see the persona lens for what that trailer then obligates).
+7. **Cross-tree proposals** name their routing and +Cc that tree's maintainer
+   (`[ +Cc ... ]` note at the top of the mail).
+8. **Recipients & trailers**: get_maintainer output + standing Ccs (Luca
+   Weiss on all FP6 series); exactly ONE `Assisted-by: LLM` (mainline's
+   model-less format since the docs-7.3 merge 2026-08-20 — optional analysis
+   tools after it; a model name, or stacked review/predecessor tags, is a
+   finding; David Heidelberg, s3fwrn5 v5, 2026-08-12) + Jorijn's own
+   `Signed-off-by:` (AI never adds it); no Co-Authored-By. Calibration
+   2026-09-02: re-read mainline `coding-assistants.rst` at every Gate 0 — the
+   format moved once already.
+9. **Tone under disagreement**: contest with evidence, without heat; never
+   attribute motives; concede explicitly what we concede (a half-concession
+   reads as evasion).
+
+## Verdict
+
+Per `presend.md` §Verdicts. Lectures, skipped points, misquotes, wrong
+attribution and missing +Ccs are FIX FIRST. A phrasing the recipient would
+not remark on is not a finding — an `immaterial` note with the reason when
+worth the record. Never grade a finding (2026-09-03: the `waivable` severity
+is retired).
+
+## Method addendum — Step 0 is YOUR first check (added 2026-08-11)
+
+0. **Should this reply exist at all?** Before any content check, re-derive
+   reply.md Step 0 against the mail being answered: if we agree with every
+   point and the coming respin can carry every answer (changelog, commit
+   message, annotated trailers), the reply is list noise no matter how
+   well-written — verdict FIX FIRST with "withdraw, ride in vN+1" as the
+   action. Questions do NOT automatically create a reply; the test is
+   whether the respin can carry the answer explicitly (see reply.md
+   calibration 2026-08-11). The pipeline reviews frozen artifacts and will
+   happily polish a mail that should not exist — twice in one day
+   (2026-08-11) only Jorijn's Gate 5 caught exactly that.
+
+## Calibration (append dated entries at the bottom)
+
+- 2026-07-07 (wcd9378 v1 thread): every reply had ≥1 pre-send catch.
+- 2026-07-21 (Conor draft): the lecture smell test.
+- 2026-07-20 (Jonathan, qmc6308 v1 2/2, `<20260720020029.18e959c3@jic23-huawei>`): ack-only
+  replies banned. (Re-sourced 2026-10-12 from the magnetometer capture; the
+  entry said 2026-07-28, the day it was written down, and named no message.)
+- 2026-08-11 (stk36c61 + icm42630, both Andy, both caught by Jorijn at
+  Gate 5, not by this lens): two replies in one day reached or passed the
+  gates that failed reply.md Step 0 — an acceptance mail for a directive,
+  and an answers-mail for two questions whose answers the respin carries
+  in the asker's own preferred form. This lens reviewed the second one
+  THREE times without asking whether it should exist. Hence method item 0
+  above: existence before content, every reply, every round.
+- 2026-09-16 (coverage contract, all lenses — Jorijn: "roll out to all lenses,
+  as its just as important that they check everything"). When the prompt carries
+  an INVENTORY, return one `{item, verdict, basis}` per unit AFTER the review
+  and the Step 0 point map: `clear` (basis = the rule or precedent it passes
+  under), `defect` (finding with `items:[id]`), `immaterial` (note with
+  `items:[id]`), `n/a` (no conduct content — a reference list). The `whole:*`
+  slots are where a mail's overall register and its skipped points live. A
+  `defect` without a finding fails closed; a missing unit is INCOMPLETE.