remove folder - untrustworthy

worker-toolkit-stocks-in-the-future/.claude/skills/detector-over-hinting/SKILL.md

@@ -1,80 +0,0 @@
----
-name: detector-over-hinting
-description: |
-  Self-check whether your task package hints at the answer, on either of two
-  surfaces you author. (1) **Prompt over-hinting**: your `instruction.md` (or a
-  standing user turn) gives part of the answer away, or states things any
-  professional SWE would do unprompted ("be sure to add tests", "cleanly
-  separate the view logic from the db logic") — converting a judgment the task
-  could have measured into an instruction the agent merely follows. (2) **Hints
-  leaking through code comments**: files you add or edit via
-  `environment/workspace.patch` — often drafted with AI assistance — can carry
-  over-helpful comments that narrate the obvious, explain intent, or point
-  straight at the planted defect or the change you expect. Distinguishes
-  genuine task constraints ("add a retry with exponential backoff capped at
-  30s" — fine) from giveaways ("hint: the bug is in the retry loop" — not).
-  Advisory by design: flagged findings are passages to reconsider, not
-  failures. Reads instruction.md + workspace.patch (+ the resolved grader
-  guidance as calibration context); runs before or after reference runs exist.
-allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
----
-
-# Over-hinting detector
-
-This skill checks one of your tasks for **over-hinting** — places where the
-package you author does the test agent's thinking for it, so the agent doesn't
-have to exercise the judgment your grader guidance scores. Two surfaces:
-
-- **Your prompt.** The classic slips are directives any professional follows
-  unprompted — "be sure to add tests," "cleanly separate the view logic from
-  the db logic," "remember to handle edge cases" — and outright giveaways:
-  naming where the bug is, what the fix looks like, or the exact diligence
-  you're grading. A genuine requirement is different: "add a retry with
-  exponential backoff capped at 30s" defines *what to build*, like a real
-  ticket would. The line is whether the sentence pins down the deliverable or
-  shortcuts the noticing/finding/deciding that is the work.
-- **Comments in files you add via `workspace.patch`.** Files drafted with AI
-  assistance often carry assistant-style comments that are too helpful:
-  tutorial headers, line-by-line narration, "NOTE: doesn't handle X yet"
-  sitting exactly on the issue your task plants. The test agent reads the
-  workspace — a comment that locates the defect or narrates the intended
-  change is a hint just like one in the prompt, only easier to miss when
-  packaging.
-
-**This check is advisory.** Over-hinting is a judgment call — real requesters
-do sometimes over-specify, and you may keep a hint deliberately. The report
-exists so you can *consider hinting less*: each finding quotes the passage,
-says what it pre-empts, and offers a concrete de-hinting option, so the
-decision stays yours.
-
-Read these before deciding:
-
-1. `.claude/skills/_detector-worker-shell.md` — where to write the report and how to handle re-runs.
-2. `.claude/skills/detector-over-hinting/core.md` — the two surfaces, the requirement-vs-hint test, what is NOT a finding, verdict enums, and the body schema.
-
-Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.
-
-## Acting on the verdict
-
-- **`clean`** — your prompt reads like a real request and your workspace
-  additions speak in-world; nothing pre-empts the graded judgment. Good. Move
-  on.
-- **`partial-hinting`** — mild or borderline hints: SWE-obvious directives, a
-  directive that restates something your rubric genuinely requires, or
-  narrating comments away from the graded material. Read each finding and
-  decide: if the sentence isn't pinning down the deliverable, cut it and let
-  the rubric measure whether the agent does the professional thing unprompted.
-  If you keep one deliberately (e.g. your grader hard-requires tests and you
-  want that unambiguous), that's a legitimate call — the flag is just the
-  prompt to make it consciously.
-- **`clear-hinting`** — something in your prompt or an authored comment points
-  substantially at the answer your rubric scores — the defect's location, the
-  expected fix or plan, or the exact diligence being measured. Take the
-  de-hinting option in each finding: delete the giveaway, move the fact into
-  your grader guidance (which the agent never sees), or rewrite it as an
-  in-world constraint. Comments are usually the easy fix — strip the
-  over-helpful ones from your patch, keeping what an in-world engineer would
-  plausibly have written. Then regenerate reference runs if the hint was
-  live in the ones you have, and re-run this skill.
-- **`not-applicable`** — there's no prompt or workspace patch to assess yet.
-  Draft them first.