evaluation-anchor-checkerlisted

# Evaluation Anchor Checker (make numbers reviewer-safe) Purpose: fix a reviewer-magnet failure mode in agent surveys: - strong numeric/performance statements appear - but the minimal evaluation context is missing This skill treats numeric claims as *contracts*: - if a number stays, the same sentence must contain enough protocol context to interpret it - if that context is not in evidence, the claim must be downgraded (no guessing) ## Inputs Preferred (pre-merge, keeps anchoring intact): - the affected `sections/*.md` files Optional context (read-only; helps you avoid guessing): - `outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl` (look for `evaluation_anchor_minimal`, `evaluation_protocol`, `anchor_facts`) - `outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl` / `outline/anchor_sheet.jsonl` - `citations/ref.bib` ## Outputs - Updated `sections/*.md` (or `output/DRAFT.md` if you are post-merge), with safer evaluation anchoring - `output/EVAL_ANCHOR_REPORT.md` (always; short report with files checked / changed / weakened sentences) - Optional completion marker: `output/eval_anchors_checked.refined.ok` ## Recommended slot in the survey pipeline Use this as the **last section-level numeric hygiene sweep before merge**: - after `style-harmonizer`, `opener-variator`, `section-logic-polisher`, and `paragraph-curator` - immediately before the final `argument-selfloop` snapshot and merge Reason: - earlier section-level rewrite passes can legitimately rephrase or fuse numeric sentences - if you only wait for