feat: add What Would Chuck Norris Do? (WWCND) anchor at Tier 3 (#438)

[raifdmueller]

Summary

Accepts @cornelius's re-proposal (#438) of WWCND, which was originally rejected in #426. The re-proposal came with a 16-page empirical validation that genuinely moves the needle — this PR gives that evidence the response it earned.

Tier 3 (★★☆), Category: problem-solving. Scope explicitly marked as a disposition activator (commit to the most direct, effective solution; refuse hedging, premature optimisation, unnecessary ceremony), not a methodology.

Why accept

• Cross-model convergence is objective and strong: 3 models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.3 Codex) × 4 scenarios = 12/12 agreement on primary recommendation, with 5 named architectural patterns (Strangler Fig, modular monolith/packwerk, team expertise, regression-for-specific-bug, CI gate) appearing unprompted across all three models.
• Plain-instruction control rules out "just generic directness": WWCND exceeds a "Be direct. Don't hedge." control condition on engagement (12/12) and insight quality (12/12). Self-scored, but the direction holds consistently.
• Catalog precedent is strong: Hemingway Bridge is attributed to a single interview; Story Circle to a sitcom creator; MBTI is scientifically contested but reliably activated. WWCND has stronger documented attribution (co-authored book with Chuck Norris himself) and stronger empirical evidence of reliable activation than all three.

Honestly documented limitations

• Self-scoring: Cornelius was not blind to condition; Engagement/Insight Quality scores carry that risk. The 12/12 recommendation agreement is independent of his scoring and is the strongest signal.
• Codex non-differentiation: GPT-5.3 Codex activates the decisiveness signal but not the character voice, applying a uniform pragmatic style to all persona anchors. Documented in the anchor text.
• Bias-for-action overshoot: In Gemini S4, the baseline (no anchor) produced a more nuanced answer than WWCND. The anchor collapses on commitment — useful for paralysis, risky for genuinely calibrated trade-offs. Documented in "Avoid in situations that require calibrated judgment."

Meta-note

WWCND itself was applied to this acceptance decision. Rejecting rigorous empirical evidence while demanding it from future proposers would be the kind of hedge the anchor exists to collapse. Commit, then let Devil's Advocate stress-test it.

Closes #438.

Test plan

• AsciiDoc linter passes on both EN and DE files
• npm run extract-metadata includes what-would-chuck-norris-do (135 anchors total)
• npm run build succeeds; all 9 static routes pre-render
• No stray workflow-* entries in regenerated data
• Changelog updated; proposer (@cornelius) credited; empirical validation and re-proposal provenance ([Anchor Proposal]: What would Chuck Norris do? #426 → [Anchor Proposal]: What would Chuck Norris do? (WWCND) — resubmission of #426 with additional empirical validation #438) noted
• AgentSkill catalog updated with tier, scope note, and validation summary

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@raifdmueller has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 13 minutes and 1 seconds before requesting another review.

Your organization is not enrolled in usage-based pricing. Contact your admin to enable usage-based pricing to continue reviews beyond the rate limit, or try again in 13 minutes and 1 seconds.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: a77b594f-1153-404f-83d8-c7c6eb179091

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4edfaca and 67ed3e6.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)

• docs/anchors/what-would-chuck-norris-do.adoc
• docs/anchors/what-would-chuck-norris-do.de.adoc
• docs/changelog.adoc
• skill/semantic-anchor-translator/references/catalog.md
• website/public/data/anchors.json
• website/public/data/categories.json
• website/public/data/metadata.json
• website/public/data/roles.json

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}