task: Weekly review proposes task new/task close; tracker gains a closing write path

Files changed:
- CHANGES.md
- INSTALL.md
- README.md
- VERSION
- docs/knowledge-and-commitment.md
- instructions/gtd-weekly-review/SKILL.md
- instructions/ingest-large-tree.md
- instructions/wiki-ingest/SKILL.md
- tools/CONTRACT.md
- tools/chemenu/commands/review_cmd.py
- tools/chemenu/commands/task_cmd.py
- tools/chemenu/review.py
- tools/chemenu/tasks/protocol.py
- tools/chemenu/tasks/superproductivity.py
- tools/chemenu/tests/test_review.py
- tools/chemenu/tests/test_superproductivity.py
- tools/chemenu/tests/test_task_cmd.py

instructions/wiki-ingest/SKILL.md

@@ -84,19 +84,21 @@ validator complains - and the ticked list is the only record that they happened.
 
 4. **Discuss with the user.** Present the key takeaways and ask: which points matter most,
    which entities/concepts to create or update, any specific emphasis - **and whether this
-   source also carries a commitment**, something to follow up on rather than only record. A
-   customer complaint, a meeting note with an action item, an offer awaiting a reply: the
-   knowledge side (steps 6-9 below) and the commitment side are not exclusive, and most
-   external sources that are not pure reading material carry both.
+   source also carries a commitment**, in either direction: something to follow up on (it opens
+   a loop) or evidence that an existing commitment is done (it closes one) - "das Angebot wurde
+   angenommen", "der Termin hat stattgefunden". A customer complaint, a meeting note with an
+   action item, an offer awaiting a reply, a confirmation email: the knowledge side (steps 6-9
+   below) and the commitment side are not exclusive, and most external sources that are not pure
+   reading material carry one or the other, occasionally both.
 
    Whether a source is actionable at all, and what its next step is, is the user's call - GTD's
-   own *Clarify* - never a guess from the source's wording alone. Do not create an item on your
-   own initiative; propose one and let the user confirm or correct it.
+   own *Clarify* - never a guess from the source's wording alone. Do not create or close an item
+   on your own initiative; propose one and let the user confirm or correct it.
 
-   **If a commitment is confirmed, resolve its project and create the item before continuing to
-   step 5** - the tracker side settles first, the same order `new project` already holds between
-   a tracker project and its page, so a failure creating the item leaves nothing promoted and no
-   page behind it. Search for a likely project rather than asking cold:
+   **If the source opens a commitment, resolve its project and create the item before continuing
+   to step 5** - the tracker side settles first, the same order `new project` already holds
+   between a tracker project and its page, so a failure creating the item leaves nothing promoted
+   and no page behind it. Search for a likely project rather than asking cold:
 
    ```bash
    tools/wikitool search "<likely project name>"
@@ -128,8 +130,26 @@ validator complains - and the ticked list is the only record that they happened.
    does not exist yet at this moment - it is freetext, never resolved or validated against an
    actual page.
 
-   No commitment in this source? Skip straight to step 5 - the knowledge side runs on its own
-   exactly as before.
+   **If the source instead closes a commitment**, resolve which open item it is and mark it done
+   before continuing to step 5 - same order, tracker side first. Search for the likely project,
+   then list its open items to find the one the source closes:
+
+   ```bash
+   tools/wikitool search "<likely project name>"
+   tools/wikitool task list --project "<confirmed project>"
+   ```
+
+   Put title and id to the user as **one** combined question - "Close '<title>' (id `<id>`) as
+   done?" - never a foregone conclusion, the same posture as the opening question above. If
+   nothing in the list obviously matches what the source describes, say so and leave it open
+   rather than guessing at an id. Once confirmed:
+
+   ```bash
+   tools/wikitool task close --id "<confirmed id>"
+   ```
+
+   No commitment either way in this source? Skip straight to step 5 - the knowledge side runs on
+   its own exactly as before.
 
 5. **Promote from `incoming/` if that is where the file sits.** Read
    `raw/CONTRACT.md` "Getting a file in" and "Capture fields" if you have
@@ -304,6 +324,11 @@ validator complains - and the ticked list is the only record that they happened.
 - **No project fits the commitment, and none should be created either?** File it into the
   tracker's inbox rather than forcing a project choice - see step 4's own three-way choice. Name
   the cost (invisible to `wikitool review`) before the user picks it.
+- **A source seems to close a commitment, but `task list` shows nothing that obviously matches?**
+  Leave it - the item may already be closed, may live under a different project name, or the
+  source may be less conclusive than it first reads. A wrongly closed item is worse than one left
+  open one more week: it disappears from every later review with nothing to show it was ever
+  there.
 - **One source names far more subjects than usual?** That is breadth, not volume. It is not
   split into several sources - it cannot be - and it does not get a page per name either:
   `instructions/ingest-large-tree.md` § A broad source is not cut.
@@ -319,9 +344,9 @@ validator complains - and the ticked list is the only record that they happened.
 
 ## wikitool commands used
 
-`raw accept`, `search`, `types describe`, `task new`, `new project`, `new source`, `new entity`,
-`new concept`, `touch`, `cite add`, `xref add`, `xref link-source`, `sources coverage`,
-`sources rebuild-index`, `index rebuild`, `log append`, `log status`, `publish`
+`raw accept`, `search`, `types describe`, `task new`, `task list`, `task close`, `new project`,
+`new source`, `new entity`, `new concept`, `touch`, `cite add`, `xref add`, `xref link-source`,
+`sources coverage`, `sources rebuild-index`, `index rebuild`, `log append`, `log status`, `publish`
 
 ## Output