fix(skills): every team-template skill binding now resolves

55 of 85 role skill bindings pointed at skills that were never authored,
so 10 of 11 team templates bound a smaller context bundle than their role
prompts assumed. Three roles bound nothing at all (gpu.bench_engineer,
threejs.shader_author, threejs.perf_engineer) while their prompts described
procedures they had no way to read.

The loader comment at team_template_loader.rs:167 already diagnosed this —
snake_case slugs in TOML against kebab-case skill files — and it was
half-fixed: the kebab names were corrected, the snake_case ones left.

It was invisible because both existing tests assert authored ⊆ referenced
(30/30, green) and the second explicitly declines to check the other
direction. So the failing half was the half nobody asserted.

Resolved every name by one of three explicit choices:

  - 23 skills authored where the role genuinely needed the procedure
    (gpu, threejs, research, analysis, frontend, mobile, backend, platform)
  - renames onto authored skills where one existed in substance, including
    the four-near-duplicate cases that collapse onto one real skill
  - 22 aspirational references deleted — a binding an agent cannot read is
    a promise, not a capability

Two tests now hold it. The unit test checks referenced ⊆ authored against
the files. The new integration test runs both loaders in boot order and
asserts the bindings survive the trip through the database, which is a
different question: resolution goes through skills_catalog rows, so a skill
file that exists but fails to ingest still leaves the role empty.

Negative controls: the unit test failed naming all 55; the integration test
fails naming the exact role when one name is reverted.

threejs.shader_author and .perf_engineer gained a second and third skill
after the collapse — pin_in_context pins idx < 2, so a role left with one
skill silently pins less than the policy intends.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>

skills/platform/level-up-proposal-shape.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+name: level-up-proposal-shape
+description: Writing an agent-improvement proposal that a human can accept or reject on the evidence, not on the prose.
+when_to_use: You are proposing a change to an agent's definition, skills or model.
+tags: [platform, brain]
+---
+
+# A proposal is an argument with evidence attached
+
+Level-up proposals go to a human review gate. The gate is the safety mechanism,
+so a proposal that cannot be judged quickly either gets rubber-stamped or
+ignored — both failures.
+
+## The shape
+
+```
+OBSERVATION   what the agent did, with a run or event to point at
+DIAGNOSIS     which part of the definition caused it
+CHANGE        the exact edit — the new text, not a description of it
+EXPECTED      what will differ next time, observably
+RISK          what this could make worse
+```
+
+`EXPECTED` is what makes the proposal checkable later. "Better research quality"
+cannot be verified; "will cite the file it changed, as `paper-to-project-relevance`
+requires" can.
+
+## Point at evidence that will still exist
+
+`mission_events` is retained for **seven days**. A proposal citing an event
+older than that points at nothing by the time anyone re-reads it. Quote the
+relevant text inline rather than referencing an id alone.
+
+## Prefer the smallest edit that could work
+
+A rewritten system prompt is unreviewable — a human cannot tell which of forty
+changed lines caused the next difference in behaviour. One change per proposal,
+so the outcome attributes to something.
+
+## Say which layer
+
+The same symptom has different fixes at different layers, and naming the wrong
+one wastes a review cycle:
+
+- **System prompt** — the agent's standing identity and constraints.
+- **Skill** — a procedure it should follow when a situation arises.
+- **Model** — capability, when the agent understood the task and could not do it.
+- **Nothing** — the task was ambiguous and the agent behaved reasonably.
+
+"Nothing" is a legitimate proposal outcome and should be written when it is true.
+
+## Reject-worthy proposals
+
+If you cannot name the observation, or the change is "be more careful", it is
+not a proposal. Vague instructions do not change behaviour, and they accumulate
+in the prompt where they crowd out the specific ones that do.