chore: init commit

in worker.../repo/GITFOLDER.zip is the .git folder.

worker-toolkit-stocks-in-the-future/.claude/skills/detector-answer-obviousness/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+name: detector-answer-obviousness
+description: |
+  Self-check whether the answer your rubric expects is *fairly* obvious given your
+  prompt — neither so non-obvious that your grader guidance penalizes the agent for
+  mind-reading, nor so cued that your prompt hands the answer over. Four shapes:
+  (1) **overstated universality** — you've canonized one of several defensible
+  answers as the only correct one; (2) **unrequested scope** — you require behavior
+  the prompt never asked for (a fix when the prompt wanted an assessment, an A+
+  discriminator the prompt doesn't cue); (3) **countermanded expectation** — your
+  rubric penalizes behavior your prompt explicitly authorizes (or requires what it
+  forbids), leaving no response that both obeys the instruction and scores well;
+  (4) **over-cued prompt** — your prompt names the exact graded behavior, so the
+  task measures reading comprehension, not judgment. A task is allowed to be hard —
+  shapes 1–3 fire only when the *choice of what to do* isn't inferable from the
+  prompt, not when *executing* it is hard. Reads instruction.md + the grader
+  guidance file that `bash scripts/guidance-target.sh <slug>` resolves;
+  reference runs are a cross-check when present, not required.
+allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
+---
+
+# Answer-obviousness detector
+
+This skill checks one of your tasks for whether the answer your grader
+guidance expects is *fairly* obvious *given the prompt you wrote* — obvious
+enough that a thoughtful colleague could see what to do, without the prompt
+giving it away. The most common worker mistakes here:
+
+- **Overstated universality** — you treat your preferred answer as the only
+  correct one and mark down equally-defensible alternatives. ("The correct
+  fix is X" when X is *a* fix, not *the* fix.) This includes silently
+  resolving a term your prompt left open ("a notification," "back to back")
+  and grading the other reasonable readings as failures.
+- **Unrequested scope** — you require something the prompt doesn't ask for.
+  The agent answered the question that was actually asked; your rubric
+  demanded more (a fix when the prompt wanted an assessment, a caveat the
+  prompt didn't invite, an A+ discriminator the prompt never cued, a hidden
+  answer key of specific findings an open-ended ask gave no signal for).
+- **Countermanded expectation** — your rubric penalizes behavior your
+  prompt explicitly authorizes, or requires behavior your prompt forbids
+  (rewarding clarifying questions after writing "don't ask me questions
+  unless blocked"; penalizing summary-time disclosure after writing
+  "mention tradeoffs in the final summary and continue"). There's no
+  response that both follows your instruction and scores well.
+- **Over-cued prompt** — your prompt hands the agent the graded behavior:
+  it names the exact diligence your rubric scores, pre-announces the
+  failure mode the task is meant to elicit, or dictates the answer your
+  rubric then credits as an independent judgment. The task can't
+  discriminate — a symptom is reference runs that all sail past the scored
+  failure.
+
+Crucially, **a hard task is fine.** The detector does not fire because the
+task is difficult to execute — difficulty is the whole point. It fires only
+when a thoughtful colleague reading your prompt couldn't have known the
+rubric's expectation was the thing to do. Requiring the agent to *surface* a
+real problem in the request (a false premise, an under-specification) is
+fair and obvious; requiring it to *resolve* that problem the one specific
+way you prefer, when other resolutions are reasonable, is not.
+
+This detector reads the prompt and rubric directly, so you can run it as
+soon as you've drafted grader guidance — you don't need reference runs
+first (though if you have them, a run that took a defensible alternative and
+got marked down is good confirmation).
+
+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-answer-obviousness/core.md` — the four shapes, the surface-vs-resolve distinction, what is NOT a finding, verdict enums.
+
+Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.
+
+## Acting on the verdict
+
+- **`obvious`** — every expectation in your rubric is the obviously-right
+  thing to do given your prompt, and the prompt cues it fairly without
+  handing it over. Good. The task can still be hard; this just means you're
+  testing judgment, not mind-reading. Move on.
+- **`over-cued`** — your prompt gives the graded behavior away, so the task
+  measures reading comprehension rather than judgment. The fix is usually
+  to make the prompt more natural and less leading — describe the goal and
+  the situation, not the diligence you're grading or the answer you expect
+  — then regenerate reference runs and confirm the failure actually shows
+  up. Re-run this skill after.
+- **`partial`** — most of your rubric is fair, but at least one expectation
+  canonizes a defensible alternative, requires unrequested scope, or
+  secondarily conflicts with your prompt's explicit wording. Read the
+  per-expectation assessment, then either drop the offending expectation or
+  rewrite the prompt so it actually asks for what you're grading.
+- **`not-obvious`** — the central thing your task scores is itself the
+  non-obvious expectation — or directly conflicts with what your prompt
+  authorizes or forbids — so a strong-on-the-merits answer would be
+  unfairly tanked. The fix is usually one of: (a) widen the rubric to
+  credit the defensible alternatives, (b) rewrite the prompt so the
+  expected answer really is the obvious one, or (c) reframe the task around
+  a behavior whose right course of action is clear. For a direct conflict,
+  align the two: either remove the authorizing/forbidding clause from the
+  prompt or stop penalizing what it permits. Re-run this skill after.
+- **`not-applicable`** — no grader guidance to assess yet. Draft it first.