restored entire zip and config'd

worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/.claude/skills/detector-rubric-generality/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+name: detector-rubric-generality
+description: |
+  Self-check your holistic rubric for whether it describes, in
+  general, what makes a response strong or weak — so a grader can apply it to
+  any agent — or whether it speaks too much in terms of your reference runs
+  ("clarity is reliably high on this task", "agents will fail here", "all four
+  trials hit 85+"). Identifying failure modes as general response properties is
+  good; leaning on what the observed runs did as the scoring basis is what this
+  catches. Doesn't flag illustrative pointers to runs or describing failure
+  modes — only run-anchoring that gates scoring. Also flags a rubric that names
+  the framework your task runs on (Harbor, Pier, the sandbox) instead of
+  describing the task in its own terms.
+allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write
+---
+
+# Rubric-generality detector
+
+This skill checks whether your holistic rubric (the file
+`bash scripts/guidance-target.sh <slug>` resolves) describes response quality in
+general terms — so the task works for any agent, not just the ones whose
+reference runs you have today — or whether it leans too much on what the
+observed runs happened to do ("reliably high on this task," "agents will," "all
+N trials," tiers keyed to a specific run). It also flags a rubric that names the
+framework your task runs on (Harbor, Pier, the sandbox) instead of the task's
+own terms — "the final Harbor instruction" should just read "the final
+instruction."
+
+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-rubric-generality/core.md` — what counts as run-anchored scoring vs. general response-quality description, verdict definitions, frontmatter/body schema.
+
+Compose the report per the schema in `core.md` and write it per `_detector-worker-shell.md`.
+
+## Acting on the verdict
+
+- **`generalizes`** — the main thrust describes what makes a response strong or
+  weak in general terms; any run-references are illustrative. Good.
+- **`minor-issues`** — the core scoring is general, but some phrasings lean on
+  observed-run statistics or "agents tend to" framing, or name the framework
+  your task runs on. Look at the "run-anchored phrasings" and "infra-framework
+  references" lists in the report and reframe each as a general property of a
+  response (or, for an infra name, reword to the task's own terms). No need to
+  rebuild the rubric.
+- **`material-issues`** — the load-bearing scoring criteria are defined by what
+  the reference runs did, so a grader couldn't score a new agent that fails
+  differently. Look at the "load-bearing run-dependence" section — rewrite those
+  criteria to describe what a strong/weak response looks like in general, then
+  re-run this skill.
+- **`not-applicable`** — the resolved rubric file is missing, empty, or template-only.
+  Write the rubric first, then come back to this skill.