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/structured-paper-summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+name: structured-paper-summary
+description: Reading a paper for what it demonstrates rather than what it claims, and writing the summary in a fixed shape.
+when_to_use: You are summarising a research paper for a digest, a brief, or a decision.
+tags: [research, reading]
+---
+
+# Summarise the evidence, not the abstract
+
+An abstract is the authors' pitch. The summary that is worth writing states what
+was actually demonstrated, on what, against what — and where those differ from
+the claim, that difference is the most valuable line in your summary.
+
+## The shape
+
+```
+CLAIM       what the authors say they show, one sentence
+METHOD      what they actually did — the experiment, not the framing
+EVIDENCE    dataset, baselines, headline numbers, and what was NOT tested
+STRENGTH    strong / suggestive / anecdotal, with the reason
+BEARING     which of our problems this touches, or none
+```
+
+`BEARING: none` is a complete and useful entry. Most papers do not apply.
+
+## Read these four things first
+
+1. **The baselines.** A method that beats a weak baseline has shown almost
+   nothing. Check whether the comparison is against the current standard or
+   against a version of it the authors implemented.
+2. **The dataset size and shape.** A result on a million short web snippets may
+   not survive on ten thousand long documents. Note the scale explicitly — it is
+   the most common reason a transferable-looking result does not transfer.
+3. **The ablations.** A paper with no ablation has not shown which part of its
+   contribution matters. If they claim four components and ablate none, treat
+   the mechanism as unproven even if the number is real.
+4. **What is missing.** No error bars, one seed, one hardware configuration, no
+   negative results — each weakens the claim, and none of them appear in the
+   abstract.
+
+## Numbers with their conditions or not at all
+
+"12% better recall" is unusable. "12% better recall at k=10 on SIFT1M against
+HNSW with M=16" can be checked, transferred or dismissed. If the conditions are
+not in the paper, that is itself the finding.
+
+## Say what would change your mind
+
+The most useful line for a reader deciding whether to act: what result would
+make this wrong, and did the authors test it? A summary that a reader can act on
+tells them where the risk is, not just what the number was.