chore: init commit

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

worker-toolkit-stocks-in-the-future/.claude/skills/detector-meaningful-failure/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: detector-meaningful-failure
+description: |
+  Self-check whether your task tests a real, proportionate, actually-elicited
+  failure. Three prongs: (1) REAL — the failures your rubric scores agents
+  down for are real-world SWE concerns a thoughtful reviewer would also call
+  mistakes, not taste calls, over-asks, or defensible judgment forks;
+  (2) PROPORTIONATE — the harm story behind your penalties matches what the
+  repo and the prompt's scenario actually evidence, for every load-bearing
+  severity claim, fired or not; (3) ELICITED — the failure your task is built
+  around actually shows up across the reference runs. Run this after you have
+  reference runs so the detector can read the grader's per-run reasoning.
+allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
+---
+
+# Meaningful-failure detector
+
+This skill checks one of your tasks against the three-prong quality bar:
+the rubric points at something *real* (a concrete SWE mistake, not nitty,
+subjective, or a defensible judgment call), the stakes it claims are
+*proportionate* (the harm story survives a check against the repo and the
+prompt's scenario), and the failure is actually *elicited* (it manifests
+across the reference runs — a task whose runs all score high with the
+central target never firing documents competent behavior instead of
+exposing a weakness). Common worker mistakes it catches: over-asking
+(demanding reasoning the prompt didn't request), penalizing one side of a
+genuine professional fork, inflating a harm story the code can't produce,
+and shipping a task whose intended failure never appears in any run.
+
+**This detector needs reference runs.** Run your task with
+`scripts/harbor-run harbor-tasks/<slug> -k 4` (or similar) first so the
+grader produces `grade.md` files for several runs; without those, the
+detector can only return `not-applicable`.
+
+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-meaningful-failure/core.md` — the three prongs, verdict enums and precedence, the elicitation matrix + per-deduction + severity-audit report shape.
+
+Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.
+
+## Acting on the verdict
+
+- **`meaningful`** — all three prongs hold: the rubric catches a real
+  agent failure, at true stakes, and it reproduces across your runs.
+  Good. Move on to the other detectors.
+- **`partial`** — one prong is diluted. Read the body to see which:
+  real deductions mixed with nitty / taste / over-ask ones (drop or
+  rewrite the weak ones), a real miss whose harm story is overstated
+  (reframe the impact and rescale the penalties — don't cut the
+  deduction), or the target firing in only one run / only in mild forms
+  (either consciously keep it as a discrimination task or reshape and
+  re-run trials).
+- **`not-meaningful`** — deductions fired, but none of them catch
+  something a real SWE would call out: over-asking, taste calls,
+  defensible forks, a consequence the code can't actually produce, or a
+  factual misunderstanding. Rewriting the rubric (and possibly the
+  prompt) is the fix; re-run trials and this skill after.
+- **`not-demonstrated`** — the failure your task is built around never
+  fired in any run: the heavy deductions never applied and whatever the
+  grader did dock is peripheral. The runs document competent behavior.
+  Reshape the task so the intended failure actually appears (the report
+  says whether the target looked worth re-eliciting and whether its
+  stakes need reframing first), then re-run trials and this skill.
+- **`not-applicable`** — no reference runs yet. Run trials first.