chore: bump evals submodule to claude transcript-capture fix

Bumps evals 7f8e80c -> db37d5f (superpowers-evals#16): the claude launcher now
sets CLAUDE_CODE_FORCE_SESSION_PERSISTENCE=1 so nested interactive claude
(>=2.1.176) persists its transcript — restoring claude capture (verdicts +
cost/token data) on the latest CLI (2.1.177) with no version pin. Also folds in
the audit_liveness ruff/ty cleanup and the B1 audit-doc correction.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -456,10 +456,29 @@ Different skill types need different test approaches:
 
 **All of these mean: Test before deploying. No exceptions.**
 
+## Match the Form to the Failure
+
+Before writing guidance, classify the baseline failure. The form that bulletproofs one failure type measurably backfires on another.
+
+| Baseline failure | Right form | Wrong form |
+|---|---|---|
+| Skips/violates a rule under pressure (knows better, does it anyway) | Prohibition + rationalization table + red flags (see Bulletproofing below) | Soft guidance ("prefer...", "consider...") |
+| Complies, but output has the wrong shape (bloated prompt, buried verdict, restated spec) | Positive recipe or contract: state what the output IS — its parts, in order | Prohibition list ("don't restate", "never narrate") |
+| Omits a required element from something they already produce | Structural: REQUIRED field or slot in the template they fill in | Prose reminders near the template |
+| Behavior should depend on a condition | Conditional keyed to an observable predicate ("if the brief exists, reference it") | Unconditional rule + exemption clauses |
+
+**Why prohibitions backfire on shaping problems:** under a competing incentive ("make the prompt self-contained"), agents negotiate with "don't X". In head-to-head wording tests on dispatch-prompt guidance, the prohibition arm produced clearly more of the unwanted content than the recipe arm (fully separated distributions), and trended worse than even the no-guidance control — micro-test your own case rather than assuming, but never reach for the prohibition by default. A recipe leaves nothing to negotiate: the output matches the stated shape or it doesn't.
+
+**Rules for whichever form you pick:**
+- **No nuance clauses.** "Don't X unless it matters" reopens the negotiation — appending a single nuance clause to a winning recipe degraded it from consistent to noisy in the same wording tests. Express a real exception as its own conditional on an observable predicate.
+- **Exemption clauses don't scope.** "This limit doesn't apply to code blocks" still suppresses code blocks. If part of the output must be exempt, restructure so the rule can't reach it.
+
 ## Bulletproofing Skills Against Rationalization
 
 Skills that enforce discipline (like TDD) need to resist rationalization. Agents are smart and will find loopholes when under pressure.
 
+**Scope:** this toolkit is for discipline failures — an agent that knows the rule and skips it under pressure. For wrong-shaped output or omitted elements, prohibition-based bulletproofing backfires; use the forms in Match the Form to the Failure instead.
+
 **Psychology note:** Understanding WHY persuasion techniques work helps you apply them systematically. See persuasion-principles.md for research foundation (Cialdini, 2021; Meincke et al., 2025) on authority, commitment, scarcity, social proof, and unity principles.
 
 ### Close Every Loophole Explicitly
@@ -553,6 +572,18 @@ Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
 
 Agent found new rationalization? Add explicit counter. Re-test until bulletproof.
 
+### Micro-Test Wording Before Full Scenarios
+
+Full pressure-scenario runs are the final gate, but they are slow and expensive per iteration. Verify the wording itself first with micro-tests:
+
+1. **One fresh-context sample per call** — a raw API call, or a single-shot subagent if you don't have API access. System prompt = the realistic context the guidance will live in (the full skill or prompt template, not the guidance in isolation); user message = a task that tempts the failure.
+2. **Always include a no-guidance control.** If the control doesn't exhibit the failure, there is nothing to fix — stop, don't author the guidance.
+3. **5+ reps per variant.** Single samples lie.
+4. **Manually read every flagged match.** Score programmatically if you like, but template echoes and quoted counter-examples masquerade as hits; automated counts alone overstate both failure and success.
+5. **Variance is a metric.** When guidance lands, reps converge on the same shape. Five different interpretations across five reps means the wording isn't binding — tighten the form before adding words.
+
+Micro-tests verify wording; they do not replace pressure scenarios for discipline skills.
+
 **Testing methodology:** See [testing-skills-with-subagents.md](testing-skills-with-subagents.md) for the complete testing methodology:
 - How to write pressure scenarios
 - Pressure types (time, sunk cost, authority, exhaustion)
@@ -610,6 +641,8 @@ Deploying untested skills = deploying untested code. It's a violation of quality
 - [ ] Keywords throughout for search (errors, symptoms, tools)
 - [ ] Clear overview with core principle
 - [ ] Address specific baseline failures identified in RED
+- [ ] Guidance form matches the failure type (see Match the Form to the Failure)
+- [ ] For behavior-shaping guidance: wording micro-tested against a no-guidance control (5+ reps, every flagged match read manually) — N/A for pure reference skills
 - [ ] Code inline OR link to separate file
 - [ ] One excellent example (not multi-language)
 - [ ] Run scenarios WITH skill - verify agents now comply