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/research/scientific-writing-conventions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+name: scientific-writing-conventions
+description: Structure, hedging and claim discipline for a technical write-up that will be read by people who will check it.
+when_to_use: You are drafting a paper, a technical report, or any document making empirical claims.
+tags: [research, writing]
+---
+
+# Write so a sceptic can check you
+
+The reader's question is "is this true?" Every convention below exists to let
+them answer it without asking you.
+
+## Structure
+
+```
+ABSTRACT     problem, what you did, headline result WITH its number
+INTRO        why this matters, what was missing, contributions as a list
+METHOD       enough that a competent reader could reimplement it
+RESULTS      what happened, including what did not work
+DISCUSSION   what it means, what it does not, threats to validity
+```
+
+Contributions belong as an explicit list. If you cannot write three sentences
+each starting "we show that...", the work is not finished.
+
+## Hedge exactly as much as the evidence hedges
+
+Both directions are failures. "Our method improves retrieval" from one dataset
+overclaims; "may potentially suggest a possible improvement" for a result with
+tight confidence intervals underclaims and reads as though you do not trust your
+own experiment.
+
+Match the language to the strength:
+- measured, with intervals, replicated → *shows*, *demonstrates*
+- measured once, single configuration → *indicates on X*
+- consistent with, not directly tested → *is consistent with*
+
+## Every number carries its conditions
+
+A number without its dataset, configuration and variance is not a result. Put
+them in the sentence or the table, never in a paragraph three pages away.
+
+## Threats to validity is not a formality
+
+State the ways you could be wrong: one seed, one hardware target, a benchmark
+your method was tuned on, a baseline you implemented yourself. A reviewer will
+find these; a paper that names them first is far more credible than one that
+lets them be discovered.
+
+## Say what you did not do
+
+Scope limits are part of the contribution. "We do not evaluate on multilingual
+corpora" prevents a reader assuming you did and finding out later — which costs
+you far more credibility than the limitation itself.