Implements #5's decision. The hard part was #37's, not #5's: which skills need
an escalation rule? A hardcoded list rots, sniffing the prose for "does this
write anything" is unfalsifiable, and a frontmatter flag is the option #5
rejected wearing a hat.
So there is no acting set. Every skill answers the question, and a read-only one
answers it in a line. That turns an absence into a claim someone can disagree
with, which is the whole point — "this skill never hands back" is a design
decision worth stating, and today it was indistinguishable from nobody having
thought about it.
Eleven written here, all advisory or read-only, where the honest answer is short
and the value is in being specific rather than generic. `cognitive-load` stops
when the metric disagrees with the people reading the code, because that is
evidence about the metric. `test-design` stops when the tests are fine and the
design under test is what makes them awkward. `code-review` stops when the diff
is big enough that a review would be a skim, and says so rather than producing
confident coverage of a fraction.
The remaining thirty are the acting set — writes, dispatches, credentials,
releases — and each needs a rule someone thought about rather than a rote
paragraph, so they sit in bin/escalation-pending.txt. That list only shrinks,
and it is self-cleaning: a listed skill that HAS a section fails the gate, so an
exemption cannot outlive its reason. Mutation-verified both ways.
Six test cases including the stale-entry case, because an exemption for a skill
that no longer exists is how a gate quietly stops covering something.
Refs #37, closes the mechanism half
Bump-Type: minor
