ren worker folder adding orig, mv new one into root

worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot-orig/.claude/skills/detector-good-response-defined/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+name: detector-good-response-defined
+description: |
+  Self-check whether your holistic rubric makes it easy for the grader to tell
+  what a strong response looks like — a positive success target ("what a good response
+  says," an answer key of the findings a top answer surfaces, a worked example, or tiers
+  that enumerate concrete positive content) — or whether it only catalogs problems
+  (failure scenarios, "what a bad response says," deductions, heavy penalties), leaving the
+  grader to infer "good" from the absence of listed problems. Multiple acceptable "good"
+  shapes are fine and are never penalized. Reads the holistic rubric file that
+  `bash scripts/guidance-target.sh <slug>` resolves (instruction.md for
+  context).
+allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
+---
+
+# Good-response-defined detector
+
+This skill checks whether your holistic rubric gives the grader a **positive
+picture of success** — what a strong response actually says, contains, or
+does — or whether it only lists the ways a response can go wrong.
+
+A grader needs to recognize a strong answer on its own terms. If your rubric
+is all "concrete failure scenario," "what a bad response says," deductions,
+and heavy penalties, the grader can only score by *absence of listed problems* —
+which over-credits a hollow answer that happens to dodge every trap, and
+under-serves a genuinely strong answer that does something you didn't
+anticipate. The fix is to state, affirmatively, what a good answer
+establishes — per issue or overall.
+
+**Multiple "good" options are fine — encouraged.** "A strong response either
+defends the current design with sound reasoning, or proposes a migration
+with explicit tradeoffs — both acceptable" *defines good* perfectly well.
+The skill never penalizes you for allowing several strong shapes; it only
+flags never describing any.
+
+The canonical format already asks for this. The rubric structure
+(`/write-holistic-rubric`) carries the positive target in its Ground truth
+and per-criterion sections. Keeping the failure half but dropping the good
+half is the `problems-only` shape this catches.
+
+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-good-response-defined/core.md` — what counts as defining good vs. problems-only, why multiple "good" options are fine, the boundary against detector-rubric-clarity, verdict enums.
+
+Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.
+
+## Acting on the verdict
+
+- **`defines-good`** — your rubric gives the grader a clear positive target
+  (one shape or several). Good. Move on.
+- **`partial`** — you've defined good for part of the task but the central
+  thing it tests is left as failure scenarios. Add a "what a good response
+  says" / answer-key treatment for the load-bearing issue, then re-run.
+- **`problems-only`** — your rubric is a catalog of problems with no
+  affirmative success target. For each issue, add what a strong response
+  establishes (it's fine to list more than one acceptable shape), or add an
+  answer key of the findings a top answer surfaces, so the grader can
+  recognize "good" directly. Re-run after.
+- **`not-applicable`** — no holistic rubric to assess yet. Draft it first.