feat(skills): author the Continuous Research skills, and make its roles honest

The boot log has said `continuous_research — 4 role skills bound, 8 unresolved`
on every start. Those eight roles ran without the instructions their template
promised them, silently: `skills_loader` reports the miss and carries on.

Worse than the missing files was what the prompts described. v1 told the
harvester to sweep "RSS feeds, GitHub trending, HN front page, YouTube /
podcast RSS" — none of which exist. `harvest.rs` searches arXiv and nothing
else. A role prompt describing a machine that was never built is the failure
this codebase keeps paying for, so v2 describes the machine that exists.

Roles now match the pipeline: paper_reader (the harvest already ran; read the
manifest and the papers), signal_ranker (unchanged in spirit), script_writer
(the podcast half, which had no role at all).

Seven skills authored under skills/research/, kebab-case to match the loader —
team_template_loader.rs:177-181 documents the snake_case/kebab-case trap that
already unbinds skills elsewhere:

  arxiv-daily                  what the harvest guarantees, so an agent does
                               NOT re-search arXiv and corrupt the seen-set
  paper-to-project-relevance   name a file or roadmap item, or say "no bearing"
  duplicate-detection          the seen-set catches identity; this catches the
                               same work under a different id
  signal-to-noise-ranking      novelty/relevance/depth, and the two biases to
                               resist (recency up, inconvenience down)
  executive-summary-writing    what it is / why it matters / what to do — decide,
                               do not hedge
  obsidian-vault-conventions   the vault is a human's live workspace; never
                               main, never reorganise, hash the body not the file
  podcast-dialogue-writing     write for someone on a treadmill; the 10-70 char
                               highlight bound is the API's, not a style rule

`web_fetch` dropped from mcp_bundles: runtime_provision.rs binds every mission
claw to `["clawmates_door"]` and never reads that field, so declaring it
instructed roles to use a tool that never arrived. The prompts say `curl` via
Bash, which is what they actually have.

Boot now reports `continuous_research — 11 role skills bound`, with no
unresolved clause. 344 tests pass.

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

skills/research/duplicate-detection.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+name: duplicate-detection
+description: Recognising that two harvested items are the same work, and why the seen-set is not enough on its own.
+when_to_use: You are processing a harvest manifest and must avoid covering the same work twice.
+tags: [research, judgement]
+---
+
+# The same work wearing different clothes
+
+The harvest already dedupes by identity: `corpus_items` keys papers by
+`arxiv:NNNN.NNNNN` with the version suffix stripped, so `2401.12345v3` and
+`2401.12345v1` are one paper and a paper already shelved never reappears. That
+is exact-identity dedup, and it is done for you.
+
+What it cannot catch is the same *work* arriving under a different identity.
+
+## The cases the seen-set misses
+
+- **A paper and its blog post.** Different URLs, same result. Cover the paper;
+  mention the post only if it adds an author's clarification.
+- **Preprint then conference version.** Different arXiv id, often a different
+  title, sometimes months apart. If the contribution is the same, it is one
+  item — and the interesting fact is what changed in review.
+- **The same group's incremental follow-up.** "X for Video" three months after
+  "X". Genuinely new, but the listener needs the earlier one as context, so
+  cover them together rather than as two unrelated items.
+- **Two groups, one idea, same season.** Not duplicates. Say so explicitly —
+  independent convergence is itself a signal that the idea is real.
+
+## How to decide
+
+Compare on **contribution**, not on title or authors:
+
+1. What does it claim that nobody claimed before?
+2. What experiment supports that specific claim?
+
+If two items give the same answer to both, they are one item. If they differ on
+either, they are two — even from the same lab, even with near-identical titles.
+
+## When you merge, say so
+
+Never silently drop the second one. A merged entry states it:
+
+> Also appeared as a NeurIPS submission with an extra ablation; same core
+> result, so covered once here.
+
+Silent dedup is indistinguishable from a harvest that missed something, and the
+whole point of a standing sweep is knowing which of the two happened.