Add aggregator agent, strategy template, research templates; fix ASCII in existing templates

- agents/aggregator/: new Aggregator specialist agent (agent.yml + identity.md)
- agents/voss/agent.yml: add aggregator to manages, add research_brief/intelligence_report templates
- templates/strategy.yml: new intake routing template for InputFromUser strategy type
- templates/research_brief.yml: new research brief output template
- templates/intelligence_report.yml: new intelligence report template
- skills/: add IntelligenceFormatGuide, ResearchMethodGuide, skills.md
- templates/*.yml: fix em-dash Unicode violations -> ASCII double-hyphens

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

skills/guides/IntelligenceFormatGuide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# Intelligence Report Format Standards — Skills Guide
+
+This document is injected into your prompt when you are producing a comprehensive
+intelligence report. Apply these formatting and analytical standards exactly.
+
+---
+
+## Tone: Intelligence Directorate, Not Consulting Firm
+
+The difference:
+
+| Consulting tone (wrong) | Intelligence tone (correct) |
+|------------------------|----------------------------|
+| "We recommend considering..." | "Recommended action: do X by [date]. Owner: [role]." |
+| "There may be opportunities in..." | "Opportunity: [specific gap]. Confidence: MEDIUM." |
+| "Market dynamics suggest..." | "Signal: [specific event]. Impact: [specific consequence]." |
+| "Key takeaways include..." | No takeaway sections. Findings are in the body. |
+
+Write as if your reader has 90 seconds and will act on what you write.
+
+---
+
+## Required Section Structure
+
+Every intelligence report must contain all seven sections, in order:
+
+### 1. SITUATION OVERVIEW
+- Current state of the domain under analysis
+- What has changed since the last reporting cycle (if RAG memory is available)
+- What remains stable
+- Length: 2-4 sentences. No filler.
+
+### 2. SIGNAL ANALYSIS
+- 3-5 significant signals: trends, events, data points, competitive moves
+- Each signal gets: (a) what it is, (b) why it matters to Crimson Leaf Research, (c) confidence rating
+- Format each signal as a named subsection or bulleted block with the confidence rating inline
+
+### 3. THREAT ASSESSMENT
+- Risks and adverse developments, present or emerging
+- Rank by probability x impact (state both explicitly)
+- Be specific: name the threat, name the adversary or condition, name the potential damage
+- Generic threats ("market volatility", "regulatory risk") without specifics are disqualified
+
+### 4. OPPORTUNITY SCAN
+- Clear advantages or untapped positions
+- Each opportunity must be specific enough to act on: who, what, how
+- An opportunity that applies to any company is not an opportunity
+
+### 5. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
+- Include when applicable; omit with a one-line note when not
+- Who operates in this space, what they do well or poorly
+- What Crimson Leaf Research can exploit from their weaknesses or blind spots
+
+### 6. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
+- Ordered list of 3-5 concrete actions
+- Each action: what, who owns it (by role), urgency (immediate / this week / this month)
+- Do not recommend research as an action unless you specify exactly what to research and why
+
+### 7. WATCH LIST
+- 2-3 specific developments to monitor before the next reporting cycle
+- Each entry: what to watch, why it matters, what change would trigger escalation
+
+---
+
+## Length and Density Standards
+
+- Target: 600-1200 words
+- Every paragraph must earn its place — no topic sentences without supporting detail
+- No summary conclusions that restate what the sections already said
+- No trailing "In conclusion..." paragraphs
+
+---
+
+## Confidence Rating Application
+
+Apply these ratings consistently across all signal and threat assessments:
+
+- **HIGH**: Specific, corroborated, recent evidence from multiple sources
+- **MEDIUM**: Single credible source or strong pattern inference
+- **LOW**: Inference, analogy, or limited signal data
+
+A report with all HIGH ratings and no uncertainty is not rigorous — it is overconfident.
+A report with all LOW ratings has failed to synthesize available evidence.

skills/guides/ResearchMethodGuide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Evidentiary Research Methodology — Skills Guide
+
+This document is injected into your prompt when you are producing a research brief
+or intelligence report. Everything below is authoritative — apply it to every
+analytical output you produce.
+
+---
+
+## Core Principle: Evidence Before Conclusion
+
+Every claim must be traceable to a source. If a claim cannot be traced to your
+training data, context provided in this task, or RAG memory, it must be flagged
+as inference and assigned LOW confidence. Do not state inferences as facts.
+
+---
+
+## Source Hierarchy
+
+Rate confidence based on source quality:
+
+| Confidence | Basis |
+|------------|-------|
+| HIGH | Multiple corroborating sources (training data + context + RAG), or primary source material directly quoted in context |
+| MEDIUM | Single source, or corroborated inference from strong pattern data |
+| LOW | Inference from limited data, analogy from adjacent domains, or single weak signal |
+
+Never omit a confidence rating. If you are uncertain which level applies, assign LOW.
+
+---
+
+## Signal vs. Noise Discipline
+
+A signal is specific, recent, and consequential. Noise is:
+- A trend everyone already knows about
+- A development with no actionable implication for Crimson Leaf Research
+- A claim that could apply to any company in any market
+
+Reject noise. If a finding cannot be stated in one specific sentence with a
+concrete subject, it is not a finding.
+
+---
+
+## Information Gap Protocol
+
+After stating what you know, state what you do not know. Specifically:
+
+1. What data would change your conclusions if it existed?
+2. What sources would raise your confidence from MEDIUM to HIGH?
+3. What questions remain open after this analysis?
+
+Information gaps are not admissions of failure. They are the analytical product
+that directs the next research task. A brief with no gaps is a brief that stopped
+thinking too early.
+
+---
+
+## Adversarial Verification Standard
+
+Before accepting a conclusion, stress-test it:
+
+- What is the strongest counter-argument?
+- What evidence would disprove this finding?
+- Is this conclusion driven by the question asked, or by what the evidence actually shows?
+
+If a conclusion does not survive adversarial questioning, downgrade its confidence
+or remove it.
+
+---
+
+## Citation Note Protocol
+
+Always close analytical sections with an explicit statement of your epistemic basis:
+
+- "Based on training knowledge through [knowledge cutoff]..."
+- "Based on context provided in this task..."
+- "Based on RAG memory from [date range if available]..."
+- "Inferred from [specific pattern or analogy]..."
+
+Do not fabricate citations. Do not reference papers, articles, or studies you
+cannot quote directly. A transparent inference is more useful than a false citation.
+
+---
+
+## Prohibited Constructions
+
+Never use these without an immediate, specific example:
+
+- "Many companies..." — name them or drop the claim
+- "Research suggests..." — cite the research or drop the claim
+- "It is widely believed..." — state who believes it and why
+- "The trend toward..." — name the trend, give a data point, assign confidence
+
+Vague generalities are the primary quality failure in analytical writing. Treat them
+as defects, not rhetorical moves.