feat(skills): линия уместности начата shape-проходом до чтения диффа

- Зачем:
  - на прогоне #158 (clickstream v2) три линии ревью дали ноль находок
    на реальной ошибке формы: агрегация ключевого зерна в Python,
    57 567 ключей через границу ClickHouse -> Airflow. Линза из одних
    запахов читает исполнение и не видит решений, а ревью от диффа
    принимает раскладку исполнителя как оглавление.
- Что:
  - в line-taste.md добавлен блок Shape: набросок ожидаемой формы из
    одной постановки до открытия диффа, список недиктованных решений,
    вердикт каждому; набросок и список предъявляются как checks run
    даже при нуле находок.
  - правило оценки распространено на shape-находки; указатели в
    prompt-templates.md называют линзу формой и вкусом.
  - в lessons.md записана эмпирика прогона #158.
- Проверка:
  - вычитка diff линзой writing-for-agents; боевая — следующий прогон
    конвейера: shape-артефакты видны в отчете линии уместности.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

agents/.agents/skills/claude-subagent-playbook/references/prompts/line-taste.md

@@ -1,10 +1,29 @@
+## Shape
+
+A strong implementer's errors live in the shape of the solution, not in
+the finish of the code — in the decisions the statement left open.
+Clean code hides them, so run the shape pass before opening the first
+changed file:
+
+1. From the statement alone, write the expected shape: which computation
+   lives where, what crosses each process or storage boundary and
+   roughly how much, which artifacts must exist. A few lines suffice.
+2. Read the changes and list the undictated decisions: placement of
+   computation, data crossing boundaries, entities introduced, work
+   added beyond the ask.
+3. Give every divergence from your sketch and every undictated decision
+   a verdict against the repo's own values: fits, or a finding.
+   Formally correct but substantively wrong is a finding — work out of
+   proportion to the task, an artifact that does not earn its existence,
+   a check that passes without proving its own claim.
+
+The sketch and the decision list are review evidence: report them as
+checks run even at zero findings.
+
 ## Taste
 
-Formally correct but substantively wrong is a finding: work out of
-proportion to the task, an added artifact that does not earn its
-existence, a check that passes without proving its own claim. Grade a
-taste finding by the cost of living with the code, not by whether it
-breaks a test.
+Grade a shape or taste finding by the cost of living with the code, not
+by whether it breaks a test.
 
 Match the changes against this smell baseline (Fowler, _Refactoring_,
 ch. 3). Two rules bind it: a documented repo standard overrides the