Add uncertain-start procedures: diagnosing a bug, prototyping and researching #3797

Overview

The built-in method begins at a known request: Asking the User, then a spec, a plan and tasks. It has no procedure for the work that comes before that, when the problem is a bug nobody has reproduced, a design question an answer to which needs running code, or a fact that has to be found in primary sources. Matt Pocock's skills (MIT) have a procedure for each: diagnosing-bugs, prototype and research.

Problem Statement

• A defect has to enter through a spec, a plan and a split, or be filed as a bare issue with no diagnosis. Nothing says to reproduce it, minimise it, find the cause and leave a regression test.
• A design question is answered by asking the user, even when a throwaway prototype would answer it faster. Writing a Spec already allows a prototype snippet but no procedure produces one.
• A research question has no procedure that ends in cited sources written to the graph.

Proposed Solution

Three procedures, each ending in an artifact the existing flow already consumes:

• Diagnosing a Bug: reproduce, minimise, hypothesise and test one cause at a time, fix, then guard with a regression test that is seen to fail without the fix. It ends in a plain issue with evidence, or a note on the task being worked.
• Prototyping: a throwaway built to answer one stated question, discarded afterwards. It ends in a recorded decision (Recording a Decision) that cites what the prototype showed.
• Researching: a question investigated against primary sources, ending in a cited note on a node the user names or a recorded decision.

Each states when to use it and when to use Asking the User instead.

Documentation

• ADR-092 planning procedures table - add three rows with source, licence and what changed
• ADR-094 §3 - a skill is attached to a node or queue; decide where each one is attached and why
• seeded-nodes.md "Procedure skills" - the count and the list change
• creating-node-types.md - not needed unless a type is proposed; none is
• Updates: the ADR-092 table and the seeded-nodes.md procedure list

Architecture Impact

Extends ADR-092's procedures; no new type, field or relationship. Companion nodespace-docs edit required; no new ADR.

Acceptance Criteria

• Each of the three procedures exists as a seeded skill with a description that says when it applies and when Asking the User applies instead
• Diagnosing a Bug requires a reproduction and a regression test seen to fail before the fix
• Prototyping and Researching each end in a recorded decision or a cited note, never in untracked output
• Each is attached where an agent arrives with that kind of work, with the reason written in the issue or the pull request
• Attribution lines carry the source, licence and copyright
• The skill-retrieval confusion matrix includes each new skill and shows no regression for the existing ones
• An eval:tasks scenario exists for the bug path
• ADR-092 and seeded-nodes.md are updated in the same change
• Code passes bun run quality:fix

Technical Specifications

Reference Files

• packages/agent/src/seeds/skills/ - one markdown file per skill; implementing-a-task.md and writing-a-spec.md for form
• packages/agent/src/skill_pipeline.rs - the seed table: add a row per skill with its links
• packages/agent/src/seeds/rules/ - reuse decision-create.md, decision-find-first.md, ask-look-up.md

Implementation Details

• Read the upstream skill files for the actual procedures before adapting; this issue was written from the repository summary.
• Speak NodeSpace only: states are node fields and checkboxes, never a tracker, label or slash command (ADR-092 rule for adapted skills).
• Keep each procedure short; three more candidates in routing is a cost (see The local agent does not follow the task procedures (eval:tasks fails 4 of 5 scenarios) #3784).

Related Issues

• The local agent does not follow the task procedures (eval:tasks fails 4 of 5 scenarios) #3784 (routing: the local agent does not reliably choose the task procedures)
• Proportionality in the review loop: severity tiers, delta re-review and a re-review recommendation #3795 and the shared verification block issue (same procedure files)

Non-Goals

• A glossary or domain-model procedure (needs a design decision first)
• Handoff, wayfinder and retrospective procedures