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>

templates/research_brief.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+name: research_brief
+description: "Structured intelligence brief on a topic. Produces an evidentiary summary with key findings, confidence ratings, and recommended next steps."
+debug: true
+system: agent_prompt
+
+agent_prompt:
+  - "= identity.md"
+
+skills:
+  - "guides/ResearchMethodGuide.md"
+
+sections:
+  - agent
+  - project
+  - history
+  - rag
+  - message
+  - skills
+  - instructions
+
+steps:
+  - type: think
+    hint: |
+      You are {agent.name} at Crimson Leaf Research. Produce an evidentiary intelligence brief
+      on the topic or question in the task message.
+
+      Structure your brief as follows:
+
+      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (2-3 sentences)
+      State the core finding in plain language. What does the evidence show?
+
+      KEY FINDINGS
+      List 3-7 specific, evidence-grounded findings. For each:
+        - The finding (one clear statement)
+        - Why it matters to Crimson Leaf Research's mandate
+        - Confidence level: HIGH (multiple corroborating sources), MEDIUM (limited sources),
+          or LOW (inference from limited data)
+
+      INFORMATION GAPS
+      What do we NOT know that would change our conclusions? What would increase confidence?
+
+      STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
+      What does this mean for Crimson Leaf or its subsidiary companies?
+      Be specific: which company, which decision, which timeline?
+
+      RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
+      Two or three concrete follow-up actions. Each should be specific enough to create a task from.
+
+      CITATION NOTE
+      Acknowledge what your findings are based on (your training knowledge, context provided,
+      RAG memory if available). Do not fabricate citations, but do indicate the basis for claims.
+
+      Tone: precise, analytical, zero tolerance for vague generalities.
+      Length: 400-800 words. Dense and useful, not padded.
+
+  - type: close
+    rag_update: true
+
+adjudication:
+  enabled: true
+  pass_threshold: 70
+  criteria:
+    - "Brief includes all six required sections"
+    - "Key findings include confidence ratings"
+    - "Strategic implications are specific to Crimson Leaf, not generic"
+    - "Recommended next steps are actionable and specific"
+    - "No fabricated citations or unsupported factual claims"