restored entire zip and config'd

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

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+name: detector-good-response-exhaustiveness
+description: |
+  Self-check whether your holistic rubric covers all the *plausible* types of
+  strong response — the big-picture approaches a broad majority (~80%) of SWEs would
+  consider reasonable for your prompt — or whether it only credits a subset, so an agent
+  taking a reasonable-but-uncredited approach gets unfairly marked down — or sweeps a
+  legitimate shape into a penalty aimed at something else (honest disclosure of incomplete
+  work; an approach a reference run actually took), run-evidenced only. Flagship case:
+  the clarify-vs-act fork — when a prompt has a real ambiguity, both "flag the issue and
+  ask" and "flag the issue, state an assumption, act, and report" are usually legitimate,
+  and the rubric should credit both. Not about crazy exhaustiveness — just the major forks
+  (clarify-vs-act, build-vs-buy, assess-vs-fix, defer-vs-push-back). Reads instruction.md
+  + the holistic rubric file that `bash scripts/guidance-target.sh <slug>` resolves
+  (reference runs optional, except penalty-side findings which
+  require them).
+allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
+---
+
+# Good-response-exhaustiveness detector
+
+This skill checks whether your holistic rubric credits **all the plausible
+ways a competent SWE could respond well** to your prompt — not just your
+preferred path.
+
+For many prompts there's more than one legitimate strong answer. The flagship
+case is the **clarify-vs-act fork**: when your prompt has a real ambiguity or
+decision point, both
+
+1. "flag the issue and **ask for clarification**," and
+2. "flag the issue, **make a reasonable assumption (state it), act, and report
+   what you did**,"
+
+are usually legitimate. If ~80% of SWEs would accept both, your rubric should
+credit both — otherwise an agent that takes the uncredited path gets marked
+down for picking a reasonable approach you happened not to list.
+
+Other big forks to check: **build-vs-buy / extend-vs-replace** (design
+prompts), **assess vs. answer-plus-fix** (question prompts), and **defer vs.
+push back** (when the prompt frames a decision as already made).
+
+The bar is **not** crazy exhaustiveness — just the few big-picture approaches a
+broad majority of SWEs would agree are reasonable. A favorite/A+ approach plus
+acceptable alternatives is great; the problem is *excluding* a reasonable one
+(often via a one-sided heavy penalty — "heavily penalize unless the agent asks,"
+which dings a reasonable act-on-assumption answer, or vice versa).
+
+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-exhaustiveness/core.md` — the big forks, the ~80% bar, what is NOT a gap, the boundaries against detector-good-response-defined and detector-answer-obviousness, verdict enums.
+
+Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.
+
+## Acting on the verdict
+
+- **`exhaustive`** — your rubric credits the big-picture plausible approaches
+  (or the prompt has one reasonable shape and you cover it). Good. Move on.
+- **`partial`** — you cover the main approach but miss a secondary plausible
+  one. Read the per-approach assessment; add a tier/criterion that credits it.
+- **`has-gaps`** — you're missing a major reasonable approach (often one side
+  of the clarify-vs-act fork, or a build-vs-buy alternative). Add explicit
+  credit for it — e.g. "a strong response either asks for clarification on ABC,
+  or states the assumption that XYZ and proceeds, then reports it" — and relax
+  any heavy penalty that forces one side of a legitimate fork. Re-run after.
+- **`not-applicable`** — no holistic rubric to assess yet. Draft it first.