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/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.