chore: regenerate SKILL.md files

Generated from updated templates + resolver merge. Key changes:
- Tier 1 skills no longer include AskUserQuestion format section
- Ship/review skills now include coverage gate with thresholds
- Connect-chrome skill includes sidebar chat onboarding step
- Plan file discovery uses host-agnostic paths

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

benchmark/SKILL.md

@@ -99,76 +99,6 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
 
 This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
 
-## AskUserQuestion Format
-
-**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
-1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
-2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
-3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
-4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
-5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
-
-Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
-
-Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
-
-## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
-
-AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
-
-- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
-- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
-- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
-
-| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
-|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
-| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
-| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
-| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
-| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
-| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
-| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
-
-- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
-
-**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
-- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
-- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
-- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
-- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
-
-## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
-
-`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
-
-- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
-- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
-- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
-
-**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
-
-Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
-
-## Search Before Building
-
-Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
-
-**Three layers of knowledge:**
-- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
-- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
-- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
-
-**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
-"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
-
-Log eureka moments:
-```bash
-jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
-```
-Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
-
-**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
-
 ## Contributor Mode
 
 If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
@@ -188,7 +118,7 @@ Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
 
 **What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
 **What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
-**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
+**My Rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
 
 ## Steps to reproduce
 1. {step}