Final Source Check

What this page explains#

The final review page is the last evidence gate before a guide claim becomes stronger wording. This page sits in Core Contributor Guide. It gives the topic a plain-language handle first, then shows the working idea, the mechanism, the source trail, and any limits that still matter. This category gives contributors a repeatable source-review method. A strong page traces a claim through source owner, data structure, serialization, validation, tests, release context, and Open Questions.

The writing follows a simple Kaspa documentation pattern: answer the practical question first, then link outward for details. The closest public sources for this page are RK-REPO, RK-TESTS, KIPS-REPO, DOC-TOCCATA-REFERENCES. Local notes can help choose what to explain, but public-facing references resolve to upstream websites, repositories, papers, release pages, or docs.

How to think about it#

The practical model starts by naming the layer that owns the topic: wallet use, node operation, consensus, transaction validation, Toccata script behavior, tooling, or research. From there, the page shows which public source can support the explanation and where the explanation becomes incomplete.

For Core Contributor Final Review, the model is built around these anchors: claim class is identified; source support is public and current; tests or review evidence are recorded; Open Questions remain visible; guide prose explains the topic before citing sources. This model is useful, but it does not encode every constant, branch, error type, or edge case. Those details belong in the source path and the source notes.

How it works#

1. claim class is identified. This is a source checking path, so the explanation starts from the claim and follows ownership through the codebase. A contributor identifies the subsystem, reads the relevant data structures and serialization, traces validation or execution, checks tests and release context, and records what the source proves as well as what remains outside its scope.

2. source support is public and current. This is a source checking path, so the explanation starts from the claim and follows ownership through the codebase. A contributor identifies the subsystem, reads the relevant data structures and serialization, traces validation or execution, checks tests and release context, and records what the source proves as well as what remains outside its scope.

3. tests or review evidence are recorded. This is a source checking path, so the explanation starts from the claim and follows ownership through the codebase. A contributor identifies the subsystem, reads the relevant data structures and serialization, traces validation or execution, checks tests and release context, and records what the source proves as well as what remains outside its scope.

4. Open Questions remain visible. This is a source checking path, so the explanation starts from the claim and follows ownership through the codebase. A contributor identifies the subsystem, reads the relevant data structures and serialization, traces validation or execution, checks tests and release context, and records what the source proves as well as what remains outside its scope.

5. guide prose explains the topic before citing sources. This is a source checking path, so the explanation starts from the claim and follows ownership through the codebase. A contributor identifies the subsystem, reads the relevant data structures and serialization, traces validation or execution, checks tests and release context, and records what the source proves as well as what remains outside its scope.

This mechanism section turns the wiki into a review workflow: identify the claim class, find the subsystem, read the source, check tests and releases, then mark the remaining gap.

How to check it#

When using this page for source review, start with the claim class, then read the owner module, tests, KIP or release context, and any dependent interface. Record what the source proves and what it does not prove before strengthening wiki wording.

Related Pages#

• review-checklists
• core-contributor-guide