Opus finding
README/SKILL.md describe bounty fee inconsistently with claim/submit/approve flow
lowdocs-gapmedium
- gitlawb/SKILL.md:144-154
- gitlawb/SKILL.md:272-276
- README.md:26
The Bankr Integration section says payouts arrive in the claimant's Bankr wallet, but the bounty flow shown earlier (`gl bounty submit ... --pr <number>` then `gl bounty approve`) never asks the claimant to declare a payout address; the docs implicitly assume the claimant DID maps to a single funded wallet. If a claimant uses one DID for gitlawb but a different Bankr wallet, or if the bounty was claimed via UCAN delegation, the docs give no guidance on where the escrow releases to. This is a contract gap that will lead to lost/misrouted funds when users assume the docs cover their case. Also, the 5% fee is stated as 'on approval' — it should clarify whether it is taken from the escrowed amount (claimant nets 95%) or charged on top to the creator; the current phrasing is ambiguous.
Recommendation
Document the exact payout address resolution (DID → wallet mapping, or an explicit `--payout-address` flag), and rewrite the fee sentence to specify 'claimant receives 95% of the escrowed amount; 5% is retained by the protocol' or equivalent.