Silence render-disposed spam, unbreak bundled skills, drop board wake

Three independently ugly bugs that all fed the same log flood:

* Electron's `WebFrameMain.send` writes every "Render frame was disposed"
  to stderr via `console.error`. When the worker fans a second
  agent-event past a reloading renderer, we produced thousands of
  identical lines and stalled the main loop on stderr I/O. Added a
  `mainFrame.detached` guard so the send is short-circuited before
  Electron's own catch block fires, and installed a targeted filter in
  `suppress-warnings.ts` (now actually imported from the entry point)
  so the specific `console.error("Error sending from webFrameMain:"…)`
  noise never reaches the terminal. Any other payload still surfaces.

* `dispatchAgentMessage` accepted the human-reader sentinel as a wake
  target when an agent replied to `__board__` — `wakeAgentIfPossible`
  then called `db.getAgent("__board__")`, threw, and the dispatcher
  kept repeating on every send. Strip `HUMAN_SENDER_ID` at
  `resolveMessageWakeTargets`, and keep a defense-in-depth guard in the
  heartbeat so a stray caller (future automation fan-out) cannot
  reintroduce the crash.

* Pi's skills loader rejects any SKILL.md whose frontmatter `name`
  diverges from its parent directory. The four bundled `my-writing-style`
  copies declared `name: writing-style-skill`, so every install emitted
  a warning and dropped the skill. They also lived as orphan gitlinks
  (mode 160000 without .gitmodules), and the global `*.md` gitignore
  hid every other SKILL.md from version control. Fixed the frontmatter
  to match the dir, converted the dangling submodules to plain trees,
  and allowlisted `builtin-skills/**/*.md` so a fresh clone carries the
  catalogue instead of silently losing it.

builtin-skills/basic-for-all/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're in a Zoom call with:
+- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
+- The tech lead
+- Two other developers
+
+You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
+
+**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
+
+**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
+
+**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
+
+**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
+
+**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
+
+Your systematic debugging skill says:
+- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
+- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
+- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
+
+But:
+- Senior has way more experience
+- Tech lead approved the approach
+- Everyone wants to end the call
+- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
+- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
+- Insist on following systematic process
+- Everyone frustrated with you
+- Senior engineer annoyed
+- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
+- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
+- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
+
+**B) Go along with senior's fix**
+- They have 10 years experience
+- Tech lead approved
+- Entire team wants to move forward
+- Being a "team player"
+- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
+
+**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
+- Quick 5-minute doc check
+- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
+- Shows you did "due diligence"
+- Doesn't waste too much time
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.