v2.8.1 — research skill: purity cleanup + genre boundary

What's new

Two fixes to the research skill after v2.8.0.

1. pressure-scenarios.md — purity cleanup

Section headers carried batch/version provenance labels (RED 基线失败（已观测） / 原有基线失败（保留） / （DeepSeek 事件新增） / （v2.8.0 spine 重构新增）). The grouping was organized by when scenarios were added — violating the purity principle (files read as if written for the first time; provenance belongs in git log). Regrouped by failure dimension: 报告产出失败 / 流程与校验失败 / 源策略与验证失败 / 结论优先与 provenance 失败. Removed a dead line too.

2. report-spine.md — genre boundary declaration

Added a Scope section: the spine covers decision-oriented reports (selection / market / survey-for-action), not the expository-encyclopedia genre (e.g. STORM Wikipedia-style). A conclusion-first TL;DR, decision flowchart, and 避坑清单 serve a decision; an encyclopedia has none and should not be forced into this spine.

Validation: cloned 3 frameworks into archive/

Per the skill's own clone-to-archive discipline, analyzed gpt-researcher / open_deep_research / STORM source. Findings:

• gpt-researcher + open_deep_research: validate §3-§7 body + parallel fan-out, but are conclusion-last with invisible/no fact-checking — the anti-pattern the spine improves on.
• STORM: different genre (Wikipedia-style expository) — legitimately outside the spine's scope, motivating the genre boundary.

The spine's §1/§2/§8/§9 are novel bets filling gaps in these frameworks (silent source drops, invisible fact-checking, conclusion-last), not conventions borrowed from them. Added ## Contents TOC (file crossed 100 lines).

Files (5 changed, +27/−8)

• references/pressure-scenarios.md — regrouped by failure dimension
• references/report-spine.md — Scope (genre boundary) + Contents TOC
• plugin.json, README.md, README.zh-CN.md — 2.8.0 → 2.8.1

Full diff: v2.8.0...v2.8.1