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/signal-to-noise-ranking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+name: signal-to-noise-ranking
+description: Scoring harvested items on novelty, relevance and depth so a digest surfaces the few that matter.
+when_to_use: You are ranking harvested research items before deciding which reach the digest or the podcast.
+tags: [research, judgement]
+---
+
+# Ranking signal against noise
+
+Score each item on three axes, 0–3. Sum them. The sum decides where it goes, and
+the axes exist so that a high score has to be earned in more than one way.
+
+## The axes
+
+**Novelty (0–3)** — how different is this from what we have already seen on this
+topic in the last 30 days? A fourth paper making the same claim is a 0 even if
+the claim is important. Recency is not novelty: something published today that
+restates last month's result is still a 0.
+
+**Relevance (0–3)** — how directly does it connect to a named project or open
+question? Not the field — the project. See `paper-to-project-relevance`. If you
+cannot name the thing it touches, this is at most a 1.
+
+**Depth (0–3)** — is this a primary source with an evaluation, or the fifth blog
+post about someone else's paper? A primary source with a weak evaluation can
+still beat a good summary of it, because you can check the former.
+
+## Thresholds
+
+```
+>= 6   goes in the digest / the episode
+>= 4   goes to watchlist.md — worth knowing, not worth airtime
+<  4   dropped from the digest, KEPT in the raw manifest
+```
+
+Dropped is not deleted. The manifest is the audit trail: "we saw it and passed"
+is a different and more useful record than silence, and it is what lets you
+notice later that the ranking was wrong.
+
+## Two failure modes to resist
+
+- **Up-ranking the recent.** Time is not a quality signal. A preprint from this
+  morning gets no credit for being from this morning.
+- **Down-ranking the inconvenient.** A paper that contradicts the approach we
+  are currently taking is *high* signal, not low. The temptation to score it
+  down is exactly why it needs airtime.
+
+## Escape hatch
+
+Anything the operator has explicitly flagged bypasses scoring entirely. A human
+saying "look at this" outranks the rubric; the rubric exists for the other
+several hundred items.