feat(skills): make summarize-status actions-first (#10117)

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Its built-in Summarizer keeps status slots useful for people
overseeing issue trees
> - Those summaries need to tell the reader what they must do now to
unblock progress
> - The existing skill instead imposed rigid Decide:/Review:/Recent
work: sections, cost commentary, and restrictive issue-fetch guidance
> - This pull request rewrites the summarize-status instructions to lead
with 1–3 specific, concrete unblock actions while letting the model use
its judgment for the remaining context
> - The benefit is a shorter, clearer summary that is immediately
actionable without changing slot writes or the streaming status protocol

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #9713

The built-in summarizer currently prioritizes a fixed reporting template
over the reader's immediate unblock actions. Summaries should instead
open with the 1–3 specific actions the reader needs to take right now,
then provide only the context needed to act. This prompt-only update
preserves all summary-slot mechanics and protocols.

## What Changed

- Rewrote the bundled `summarize-status` skill to open with 1–3
specific, concrete, actionable items needed right now to unblock the
work.
- Removed the rigid Decide:/Review:/Recent work: template, the Cost
discipline section, and the restrictions against fetching issue detail.
- Kept slot-write mechanics and the streaming `STATUS`/sentinel protocol
unchanged.
- Updated all materialized copies and tests for the same skill text: the
`SKILL.md` source, regenerated catalog manifest hashes, compiled
fallback string, summarizer built-in `AGENTS.md` and routine, summary
generation-issue instructions, and the two tests pinning those strings.
- Although the diff touches eight files, every file is either the same
skill text in another materialized form or a test asserting it. No
behavior outside the summarizer's prompt text changes.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` — 20/20 tests pass.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts` — 46/46 tests pass.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts` —
16/16 tests pass after the Greptile consistency fix.
- Latest-head GitHub checks — 25 terminal checks, all successful,
neutral, or skipped.

## Risks

- Low risk: this intentionally changes generated summary wording and
prioritization, but does not change APIs, persistence, slot-write
behavior, or the streaming protocol.
- The branch name contains an internal task identifier because it was
pre-created and pre-pushed for this assigned change; the PR title and
body do not expose the internal ticket.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, with
repository, terminal, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

server/src/services/built-in-agents.ts

@@ -196,13 +196,13 @@ const FALLBACK_SUMMARIZER_ROUTINE = [
 const FALLBACK_SUMMARIZER_SKILL = [
   "---",
   "name: summarize-status",
-  "description: Write a short, colloquial summary for a Paperclip summary slot: open with the one or two decisions the reader must make — or, when nothing needs deciding, what to review — each with a recommendation, close with one or two recent pieces of work and where they stand, streaming status as it works.",
+  "description: Write a short, colloquial summary for a Paperclip summary slot: open with the 1–3 specific, concrete actions the reader needs to take right now to unblock the work, then a brief plain-language status, streaming progress as it works.",
   "key: paperclipai/bundled/paperclip-operations/summarize-status",
   "---",
   "",
   "# Summarize status",
   "",
-  "Turn a Paperclip scope's current state into a short, colloquial Markdown summary — opening with a `**Decide:**` block of at most two bullets (each with the decision's context, a link, and an `**I suggest:**` recommendation), followed by plain prose on the one or two things that matter most, with at most three or four inline issue links and never a trailing link list — then write it back to the scope's summary slot. When nothing needs a decision, open with `**Nothing to decide right now.**` plus a `**Review:**` block (at most two bullets) triaging what is waiting on review — easy approves vs what needs the reader's eyes — each with a link and an `**I suggest:**` recommendation. End every summary with a `**Recent work:**` block: at most two bullets, one line each, naming a recent piece of work and where it stands. Post the first `STATUS:` line immediately from the first task in context and keep streaming `STATUS:` lines while working. Not a task list. Read-and-report only; never fabricate status.",
+  "Turn a Paperclip scope's current state into a short, colloquial Markdown summary and write it back to the scope's summary slot. Open with the 1–3 specific, concrete, actionable items the reader should do right now to unblock the work — each saying what to do and why it's the thing holding up progress, with an inline link — then a brief plain-prose status of where things stand, written for a reader who has not memorized issue ids or threads. Read whatever issues you need to understand the state, then focus on what's most important; never a task list or a dump of issue links. If genuinely nothing needs the reader, say so plainly in one line and name the next thing worth watching. Post the first `STATUS:` line immediately from the first task in context, keep streaming `STATUS:` lines while working, and emit the final Markdown between the summary-draft sentinels before the slot write. Read-and-report only; never fabricate status.",
   "",
 ].join("\n");
 

server/src/services/summary-slots.ts

@@ -419,8 +419,8 @@ export function summarySlotService(db: Db) {
       ),
       "```",
       "",
-      "Write one short, colloquial Markdown summary that opens with a `**Decide:**` block: at most two bullets, each giving the decision's context, a link, and an `**I suggest:**` recommendation, then one or two plain-prose paragraphs on the (max two) things that matter most. If nothing needs a decision, open with one `**Nothing to decide right now.**` line followed by a `**Review:**` block (at most two bullets) that triages what is waiting on review — what the reader can approve on a skim vs what needs their eyes — each with a link and an `**I suggest:**` recommendation; if nothing is in review either, one clause naming the next event worth watching. End the summary with a `**Recent work:**` block: at most two bullets, one line each, naming a recent piece of work and where it stands in plain language. Reference at most three or four issues inline; never a trailing list of issue links or any link dump. Not a task list.",
-      "The current-slot response includes the latest document body and `latestRevisionId`; do not call the revisions or issues-list endpoints.",
+      "Write one short, colloquial Markdown summary that opens with the 1–3 specific, concrete, actionable items the reader should do right now to unblock this work — each saying what to do and why it's the thing holding up progress, with an inline link — followed by a brief plain-prose status of where things stand. Use your judgment: read whatever issues you need to understand the state, then focus on what's most important. Write for a reader who has not memorized issue ids or threads. If genuinely nothing needs the reader, say so plainly in one line and name the next thing worth watching. Never a trailing list of issue links or any link dump. Not a task list.",
+      "The current-slot response includes the latest document body and `latestRevisionId`; use those directly.",
       "Follow the skill's streaming protocol: emit the first plain-text `STATUS:` line immediately — named from the first task in the snapshot, before any analysis — keep emitting `STATUS:` lines as you think, and emit the sentinel-wrapped summary draft before the authoritative summary-slot write.",
       "Pass the `generationIssueId` from the payload, the previous revision id when present, and the model actually used to the summary-slot write API.",
       "",