fix(kyberforge): reconcile the authoring rules the ADR-0020 trim left disagreeing

Six defects, each one a place where two files that an author reads in the same
sitting told them different things — or where the trim dropped a rule and nothing
noticed because no gate covers prose.

**"Use proactively" contradicted itself across the pair.** All three agent
templates said to add it where the runtime should delegate unprompted, while
`agent-audit`'s `KyberforgeCopilot.ProactivePhrase` rule grades it a hard FAIL in
any `*.agent.md` — which is the Copilot half of every project/user pair *and* the
vendor-neutral plugin-scope file, since that compiles to a real Copilot agent
downstream. Following the template produced a file the repo's own gate rejects.
The phrase is now permitted in exactly one place, the Claude Code `.md`, and
`references/contract.md` carries the per-file table plus the consequence authors
ask about next: a pair whose CC half has it and whose Copilot half does not is
correct, because `agent-audit` checks that both halves describe the same job, not
that they match word for word.

**The output-schema rule contradicted itself inside one file.** `contract.md`
said any content only one branch reaches moves to `references/`, and then offered
an "Output format template" body pattern with no qualification. Stated once now,
so it is not re-litigated: an output schema stays in the body only when every flow
produces it and it is roughly 50 words or less. No third option.

**Gotchas tiers disagreed with the script.** `validate.sh` emits the entry count
through `suggest()` and exits 0, while `skill-author` and `skill-audit` both
called more than five entries a FAIL. Whether a given gotcha earns its place is
judgment, so the prose moves to the script's tier rather than the reverse. The
paraphrase rule stays a FAIL and is explicitly marked as the auditor's call — no
script detects it.

**The dispatch exemplar was cited at the wrong number.** `apm-workflow`'s body is
421 words; 554 is its whole-file count. Both `contract.md` and `body-discipline.md`
cited 554 while describing a body budget, so an author calibrating against the
exemplar overshot by ~30% — the exact whole-file/body-only conflation those two
sections exist to warn against, reproduced inside the warning.

**"Error handling" came back as a required body element.** It was one of four and
is the one that gets dropped, and dropping it is not neutral: an agent handed
malformed input with no instruction invents a recovery, and a subagent's invented
recovery is invisible to its caller until the output is wrong. Restored in
`agent-audit`'s rubric as a SUGGESTION, in `agent-author`'s contract and both
scope checklists as a required element, and as an `## Errors` section in all three
templates.

**`skill-author` Step 4 gains the one check the audit misses.** An empty body
reports `PASS SKILL.md body word count 0` — a word gate cannot tell "concise"
from "absent". Step 4 now hand-checks for a non-empty section, and its commit
verification is conditioned on actually being inside a git worktree, which a skill
under `~/.claude/skills/` is not.

Also here: absolute repo paths removed from `skill-author`'s SKILL.md and
contract.md in favour of naming the skill (`zoom-out`'s description is quoted
inline instead of pointed at), the boundary-target universe documented to match
the resolver, a two-hops-from-SKILL.md limit on reference chains, and
`new-agent.sh`'s next-steps output naming the description budget and the
deliberate absence of an agent body gate.

Refs: ADR-0020

plugins/kyberforge/.apm/skills/skill-audit/references/body-discipline.md

@@ -69,8 +69,10 @@ table** plus the gates common to every branch, and each flow lives in its own se
 `references/` file. Inlining all of them is a FAIL regardless of word count, because every
 invocation then pays for every branch it did not take.
 
-The reference shape in this repo is `apm-workflow`: a 554-word body dispatching to roughly 3,000
-words of references across five mutually exclusive invocations.
+The reference shape in this repo is `apm-workflow`: a **421-word body** dispatching to roughly
+3,000 words of references across five mutually exclusive invocations. Its whole-file count is 554
+words — cite 421 when calibrating a body, or the conflation this section warns against reappears
+in the finding itself.
 
 ## Gotchas sections
 
@@ -86,17 +88,20 @@ sensibly.
 
 Constraints:
 
-- **Maximum five entries.** Past five, the section is a summary of the body rather than a set of
-  traps, and the agent stops reading it as a warning.
+- **More than five entries is a SUGGESTION** — five is the guideline, not a ceiling. Past five, the
+  section is usually a summary of the body rather than a set of traps, and the agent stops reading
+  it as a warning. It stays advisory because whether a given gotcha earns its place is judgment;
+  `validate.sh` emits it through `suggest()` and the run still exits 0.
 - **A Gotcha that paraphrases a step in the body below it is a FAIL.** It has no independent
   content, and it teaches the agent that Gotchas can be skimmed because the real instruction is
-  coming.
+  coming. This one is the auditor's call — no script detects it.
 - **A Gotchas section exceeding 25% of the body is a SUGGESTION** — the body has been inverted into
-  a preamble.
+  a preamble. Same tier and same reasoning as the entry count, and independent of it: either can
+  fire without the other.
 - Place the section near the top. A gotcha read after the mistake is worthless, which is also why
   Gotchas is the one construct exempt from moving to `references/`.
 
-Worked negative example — `git-commits` carries thirteen entries, of which four restate content
+Worked negative example — `git-commits` carries twelve entries, of which four restate content
 that already appears below or in the description:
 
 | Gotcha | Restates |
@@ -106,8 +111,10 @@ that already appears below or in the description:
 | `:33` "Never skip hooks with `--no-verify`" | step 9 at `:52` |
 | `:36` "Never commit secrets" | step 2 at `:45` |
 
-All four are FAILs under this rule, and the section as a whole breaches the five-entry maximum. It
-also passes every plausible word gate, which is the point of auditing the construct directly.
+All four are FAILs under the paraphrase rule. The entry count and the section's share of the body
+(387 of 1,102 words, 35%) are two further SUGGESTIONs on top — the script reports both, and neither
+fails the run on its own. What makes this worth auditing directly is that the four paraphrase FAILs
+pass every word gate there is; only reading the construct finds them.
 
 ## Calibrating control
 
@@ -144,7 +151,7 @@ Flag as FAIL if:
 - A sentence answers "no" to the core test — it is padding
 - The body exceeds 900 words counted body-only (`validate.sh` reports it)
 - Two or more mutually exclusive flows are inlined instead of dispatched
-- A Gotcha paraphrases a step in the body below it, or the section exceeds five entries
+- A Gotcha paraphrases a step in the body below it
 - A decision point presents a menu of options with no default
 - An instruction repeats content already in the description
 - A prescriptive sequence is used where flexibility is fine, or the reverse
@@ -152,6 +159,7 @@ Flag as FAIL if:
 Flag as SUGGESTION if:
 
 - The body exceeds 600 words counted body-only but stays at or under 900
+- The Gotchas section carries more than five entries
 - The Gotchas section exceeds 25% of the body
 - A rationale is missing from an include/exclude rule — present but unexplained
 - Gotchas are correct but placed late in the body rather than near the top