Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into garrytan/zsh-glob-fix

# Conflicts:
#	.agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md
#	.agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md

review/SKILL.md

@@ -13,7 +13,9 @@ allowed-tools:
   - Write
   - Grep
   - Glob
+  - Agent
   - AskUserQuestion
+  - WebSearch
 ---
 <!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
 <!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
@@ -32,6 +34,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -133,6 +138,38 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
 
+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
+
+**Three layers of knowledge:**
+- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
+- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
+- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
+
+**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
+"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
+
+Log eureka moments:
+```bash
+jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
+```
+Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
+
+**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
+
 ## Contributor Mode
 
 If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
@@ -223,6 +260,42 @@ success/error/abort, and `USED_BROWSE` with true/false based on whether `$B` was
 If you cannot determine the outcome, use "unknown". This runs in the background and
 never blocks the user.
 
+## Plan Status Footer
+
+When you are in plan mode and about to call ExitPlanMode:
+
+1. Check if the plan file already has a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section.
+2. If it DOES — skip (a review skill already wrote a richer report).
+3. If it does NOT — run this command:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
+\`\`\`
+
+Then write a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section to the end of the plan file:
+
+- If the output contains review entries (JSONL lines before `---CONFIG---`): format the
+  standard report table with runs/status/findings per skill, same format as the review
+  skills use.
+- If the output is `NO_REVIEWS` or empty: write this placeholder table:
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
+
+| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
+|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
+| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | 0 | — | — |
+| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | 0 | — | — |
+| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | 0 | — | — |
+| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | 0 | — | — |
+
+**VERDICT:** NO REVIEWS YET — run \`/autoplan\` for full review pipeline, or individual reviews above.
+\`\`\`
+
+**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This writes to the plan file, which is the one
+file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
+plan's living status.
+
 ## Step 0: Detect base branch
 
 Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.
@@ -325,10 +398,17 @@ Run `git diff origin/<base>` to get the full diff. This includes both committed
 Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes:
 
 1. **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Enum & Value Completeness
-2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend
+2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend, Performance & Bundle Impact
 
 **Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient.
 
+**Search-before-recommending:** When recommending a fix pattern (especially for concurrency, caching, auth, or framework-specific behavior):
+- Verify the pattern is current best practice for the framework version in use
+- Check if a built-in solution exists in newer versions before recommending a workaround
+- Verify API signatures against current docs (APIs change between versions)
+
+Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns. If WebSearch is unavailable, note it and proceed with in-distribution knowledge.
+
 Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section.
 
 ---
@@ -368,10 +448,209 @@ source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)
 
 Substitute: TIMESTAMP = ISO 8601 datetime, STATUS = "clean" if 0 findings or "issues_found", N = total findings, M = auto-fixed count, COMMIT = output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`.
 
+7. **Codex design voice** (optional, automatic if available):
+
+```bash
+which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
+```
+
+If Codex is available, run a lightweight design check on the diff:
+
+```bash
+TMPERR_DRL=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-drl-XXXXXXXX)
+codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? Flag any hard rejections: 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
+```
+
+Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
+```bash
+cat "$TMPERR_DRL" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DRL"
+```
+
+**Error handling:** All errors are non-blocking. On auth failure, timeout, or empty response — skip with a brief note and continue.
+
+Present Codex output under a `CODEX (design):` header, merged with the checklist findings above.
+
 Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the same Fix-First flow in Step 5 — AUTO-FIX for mechanical CSS fixes, ASK for everything else.
 
 ---
 
+## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
+
+100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath changed in the diff and identify test gaps. Gaps become INFORMATIONAL findings that follow the Fix-First flow.
+
+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+```bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
+
+**Step 1. Trace every codepath changed** using `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD`:
+
+Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
+
+1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
+2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
+   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
+   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
+   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
+   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
+3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
+   - Every function/method that was added or modified
+   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
+   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
+   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
+   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
+
+This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
+
+**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
+
+Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
+
+- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
+- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
+  - Double-click/rapid resubmit
+  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
+  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
+  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
+  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
+- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
+  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
+  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
+  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
+- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
+
+Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
+
+**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
+
+Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
+- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
+- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
+- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
+- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
+- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
+- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
+
+Quality scoring rubric:
+- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
+- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
+- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
+
+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
+
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
+
+Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
+
+**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
+
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
+
+```
+CODE PATH COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] src/services/billing.ts
+    │
+    ├── processPayment()
+    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
+    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
+    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
+    │
+    └── refundPayment()
+        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
+        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
+
+USER FLOW COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] Payment checkout flow
+    │
+    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+
+[+] Error states
+    │
+    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
+    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
+    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST
+
+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
+  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
+QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
+─────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Step 4.75: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
+
+**Step 5. Generate tests for gaps (Fix-First):**
+
+If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
+- Classify each gap as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic:
+  - **AUTO-FIX:** Simple unit tests for pure functions, edge cases of existing tested functions
+  - **ASK:** E2E tests, tests requiring new test infrastructure, tests for ambiguous behavior
+- For AUTO-FIX gaps: generate the test, run it, commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
+- For ASK gaps: include in the Fix-First batch question with the other review findings
+- For paths marked [→E2E]: always ASK (E2E tests are higher-effort and need user confirmation)
+- For paths marked [→EVAL]: always ASK (eval tests need user confirmation on quality criteria)
+
+If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, no generation.
+
+**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
+
+This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 5: Fix-First Review
 
 **Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
@@ -484,128 +763,139 @@ If no documentation files exist, skip this step silently.
 
 ---
 
-## Step 5.7: Codex review
+## Step 5.7: Adversarial review (auto-scaled)
 
-Check if the Codex CLI is available and read the user's Codex review preference:
+Adversarial review thoroughness scales automatically based on diff size. No configuration needed.
+
+**Detect diff size and tool availability:**
 
 ```bash
+DIFF_INS=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ insertion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
+DIFF_DEL=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ deletion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
+DIFF_TOTAL=$((DIFF_INS + DIFF_DEL))
 which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
-CODEX_REVIEWS_CFG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || true)
-echo "CODEX_REVIEWS: ${CODEX_REVIEWS_CFG:-not_set}"
+# Respect old opt-out
+OLD_CFG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || true)
+echo "DIFF_SIZE: $DIFF_TOTAL"
+echo "OLD_CFG: ${OLD_CFG:-not_set}"
 ```
 
-If `CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE`: skip this step silently. Continue to the next step.
+If `OLD_CFG` is `disabled`: skip this step silently. Continue to the next step.
 
-If `CODEX_REVIEWS` is `disabled`: skip this step silently. Continue to the next step.
+**User override:** If the user explicitly requested a specific tier (e.g., "run all passes", "paranoid review", "full adversarial", "do all 4 passes", "thorough review"), honor that request regardless of diff size. Jump to the matching tier section.
 
-If `CODEX_REVIEWS` is `enabled`: run both code review and adversarial challenge automatically (no prompt). Jump to the "Run Codex" section below.
+**Auto-select tier based on diff size:**
+- **Small (< 50 lines changed):** Skip adversarial review entirely. Print: "Small diff ($DIFF_TOTAL lines) — adversarial review skipped." Continue to the next step.
+- **Medium (50–199 lines changed):** Run Codex adversarial challenge (or Claude adversarial subagent if Codex unavailable). Jump to the "Medium tier" section.
+- **Large (200+ lines changed):** Run all remaining passes — Codex structured review + Claude adversarial subagent + Codex adversarial. Jump to the "Large tier" section.
 
-If `CODEX_REVIEWS` is `not_set`: use AskUserQuestion to offer the one-time adoption prompt:
+---
 
-```
-GStack recommends enabling Codex code reviews — Codex is the super smart quiet engineer friend who will save your butt.
+### Medium tier (50–199 lines)
 
-A) Enable for all future runs (recommended, default)
-B) Try it for now, ask me again later
-C) No thanks, don't ask me again
-```
+Claude's structured review already ran. Now add a **cross-model adversarial challenge**.
 
-If the user chooses A: persist the setting and run both:
-```bash
-~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled
-```
+**If Codex is available:** run the Codex adversarial challenge. **If Codex is NOT available:** fall back to the Claude adversarial subagent instead.
 
-If the user chooses B: run both this time but do not persist any setting.
+**Codex adversarial:**
 
-If the user chooses C: persist the opt-out and skip:
-```bash
-~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set codex_reviews disabled
-```
-Then skip this step. Continue to the next step.
-
-### Run Codex
-
-Always run **both** code review and adversarial challenge. Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`) on each Bash call.
-
-First, create a temp file for stderr capture:
-```bash
-TMPERR=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-review-XXXXXXXX)
-```
-
-**Code review:** Run:
-```bash
-codex review --base <base> -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR"
-```
-
-After the command completes, read stderr for cost/error info:
-```bash
-cat "$TMPERR"
-```
-
-Present the full output verbatim under a `CODEX SAYS (code review):` header:
-
-```
-CODEX SAYS (code review):
-════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-<full codex output, verbatim — do not truncate or summarize>
-════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-GATE: PASS                    Tokens: N | Est. cost: ~$X.XX
-```
-
-Check the output for `[P1]` markers. If found: `GATE: FAIL`. If no `[P1]`: `GATE: PASS`.
-
-**If GATE is FAIL:** use AskUserQuestion:
-
-```
-Codex found N critical issues in the diff.
-
-A) Investigate and fix now (recommended)
-B) Ship anyway — these issues may cause production problems
-```
-
-If the user chooses A: read the Codex findings carefully and work to address them. Then re-run `codex review` to verify the gate is now PASS.
-
-If the user chooses B: continue to the next step.
-
-### Error handling (code review)
-
-Before persisting the gate result, check for errors. All errors are non-blocking — Codex is a quality enhancement, not a prerequisite. Check `$TMPERR` output (already read above) for error indicators:
-
-- **Auth failure:** If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key", tell the user: "Codex authentication failed. Run \`codex login\` in your terminal to authenticate via ChatGPT." Do NOT persist a review log entry. Continue to the adversarial step (it will likely fail too, but try anyway).
-- **Timeout:** If the Bash call times out (5 min), tell the user: "Codex timed out after 5 minutes. The diff may be too large or the API may be slow." Do NOT persist a review log entry. Skip to cleanup.
-- **Empty response:** If codex returned no stdout output, tell the user: "Codex returned no response. Stderr: <paste relevant error>." Do NOT persist a review log entry. Skip to cleanup.
-
-**Only if codex produced a real review (non-empty stdout):** Persist the code review result:
-```bash
-~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"codex-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","gate":"GATE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
-```
-
-Substitute: STATUS ("clean" if PASS, "issues_found" if FAIL), GATE ("pass" or "fail").
-
-**Adversarial challenge:** Run:
 ```bash
 TMPERR_ADV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-adv-XXXXXXXX)
 codex exec "Review the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"
 ```
 
-After the command completes, read adversarial stderr:
+Set the Bash tool's `timeout` parameter to `300000` (5 minutes). Do NOT use the `timeout` shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. After the command completes, read stderr:
 ```bash
 cat "$TMPERR_ADV"
 ```
 
-Present the full output verbatim under a `CODEX SAYS (adversarial challenge):` header. This is informational — it never blocks shipping. If the adversarial command timed out or returned no output, note this to the user and continue.
+Present the full output verbatim. This is informational — it never blocks shipping.
 
-**Cross-model analysis:** After both Codex outputs are presented, compare Codex's findings with your own review findings from the earlier review steps and output:
+**Error handling:** All errors are non-blocking — adversarial review is a quality enhancement, not a prerequisite.
+- **Auth failure:** If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run \`codex login\` to authenticate."
+- **Timeout:** "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
+- **Empty response:** "Codex returned no response. Stderr: <paste relevant error>."
 
+On any Codex error, fall back to the Claude adversarial subagent automatically.
+
+**Claude adversarial subagent** (fallback when Codex unavailable or errored):
+
+Dispatch via the Agent tool. The subagent has fresh context — no checklist bias from the structured review. This genuine independence catches things the primary reviewer is blind to.
+
+Subagent prompt:
+"Read the diff for this branch with `git diff origin/<base>`. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Look for: edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, silent data corruption, logic errors that produce wrong results silently, error handling that swallows failures, and trust boundary violations. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems. For each finding, classify as FIXABLE (you know how to fix it) or INVESTIGATE (needs human judgment)."
+
+Present findings under an `ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (Claude subagent):` header. **FIXABLE findings** flow into the same Fix-First pipeline as the structured review. **INVESTIGATE findings** are presented as informational.
+
+If the subagent fails or times out: "Claude adversarial subagent unavailable. Continuing without adversarial review."
+
+**Persist the review result:**
+```bash
+~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"adversarial-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","tier":"medium","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
 ```
-CROSS-MODEL ANALYSIS:
-  Both found: [findings that overlap between Claude and Codex]
-  Only Codex found: [findings unique to Codex]
-  Only Claude found: [findings unique to Claude's review]
-  Agreement rate: X% (N/M total unique findings overlap)
+Substitute STATUS: "clean" if no findings, "issues_found" if findings exist. SOURCE: "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran. If both failed, do NOT persist.
+
+**Cleanup:** Run `rm -f "$TMPERR_ADV"` after processing (if Codex was used).
+
+---
+
+### Large tier (200+ lines)
+
+Claude's structured review already ran. Now run **all three remaining passes** for maximum coverage:
+
+**1. Codex structured review (if available):**
+```bash
+TMPERR=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-review-XXXXXXXX)
+codex review --base <base> -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR"
 ```
 
-**Cleanup:** Run `rm -f "$TMPERR" "$TMPERR_ADV"` after processing.
+Set the Bash tool's `timeout` parameter to `300000` (5 minutes). Do NOT use the `timeout` shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. Present output under `CODEX SAYS (code review):` header.
+Check for `[P1]` markers: found → `GATE: FAIL`, not found → `GATE: PASS`.
+
+If GATE is FAIL, use AskUserQuestion:
+```
+Codex found N critical issues in the diff.
+
+A) Investigate and fix now (recommended)
+B) Continue — review will still complete
+```
+
+If A: address the findings. Re-run `codex review` to verify.
+
+Read stderr for errors (same error handling as medium tier).
+
+After stderr: `rm -f "$TMPERR"`
+
+**2. Claude adversarial subagent:** Dispatch a subagent with the adversarial prompt (same prompt as medium tier). This always runs regardless of Codex availability.
+
+**3. Codex adversarial challenge (if available):** Run `codex exec` with the adversarial prompt (same as medium tier).
+
+If Codex is not available for steps 1 and 3, note to the user: "Codex CLI not found — large-diff review ran Claude structured + Claude adversarial (2 of 4 passes). Install Codex for full 4-pass coverage: `npm install -g @openai/codex`"
+
+**Persist the review result AFTER all passes complete** (not after each sub-step):
+```bash
+~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"adversarial-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","tier":"large","gate":"GATE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
+```
+Substitute: STATUS = "clean" if no findings across ALL passes, "issues_found" if any pass found issues. SOURCE = "both" if Codex ran, "claude" if only Claude subagent ran. GATE = the Codex structured review gate result ("pass"/"fail"), or "informational" if Codex was unavailable. If all passes failed, do NOT persist.
+
+---
+
+### Cross-model synthesis (medium and large tiers)
+
+After all passes complete, synthesize findings across all sources:
+
+```
+ADVERSARIAL REVIEW SYNTHESIS (auto: TIER, N lines):
+════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+  High confidence (found by multiple sources): [findings agreed on by >1 pass]
+  Unique to Claude structured review: [from earlier step]
+  Unique to Claude adversarial: [from subagent, if ran]
+  Unique to Codex: [from codex adversarial or code review, if ran]
+  Models used: Claude structured ✓  Claude adversarial ✓/✗  Codex ✓/✗
+════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+```
+
+High-confidence findings (agreed on by multiple sources) should be prioritized for fixes.
 
 ---
 

review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -13,7 +13,9 @@ allowed-tools:
   - Write
   - Grep
   - Glob
+  - Agent
   - AskUserQuestion
+  - WebSearch
 ---
 
 {{PREAMBLE}}
@@ -103,10 +105,17 @@ Run `git diff origin/<base>` to get the full diff. This includes both committed
 Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes:
 
 1. **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Enum & Value Completeness
-2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend
+2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend, Performance & Bundle Impact
 
 **Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient.
 
+**Search-before-recommending:** When recommending a fix pattern (especially for concurrency, caching, auth, or framework-specific behavior):
+- Verify the pattern is current best practice for the framework version in use
+- Check if a built-in solution exists in newer versions before recommending a workaround
+- Verify API signatures against current docs (APIs change between versions)
+
+Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns. If WebSearch is unavailable, note it and proceed with in-distribution knowledge.
+
 Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section.
 
 ---
@@ -119,6 +128,14 @@ Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the
 
 ---
 
+## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
+
+{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
+
+This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 5: Fix-First Review
 
 **Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
@@ -231,7 +248,7 @@ If no documentation files exist, skip this step silently.
 
 ---
 
-{{CODEX_REVIEW_STEP}}
+{{ADVERSARIAL_STEP}}
 
 ## Important Rules
 

review/checklist.md

@@ -108,6 +108,23 @@ To do this: use Grep to find all references to the sibling values (e.g., grep fo
 - O(n*m) lookups in views (`Array#find` in a loop instead of `index_by` hash)
 - Ruby-side `.select{}` filtering on DB results that could be a `WHERE` clause (unless intentionally avoiding leading-wildcard `LIKE`)
 
+#### Performance & Bundle Impact
+- New `dependencies` entries in package.json that are known-heavy: moment.js (→ date-fns, 330KB→22KB), lodash full (→ lodash-es or per-function imports), jquery, core-js full polyfill
+- Significant lockfile growth (many new transitive dependencies from a single addition)
+- Images added without `loading="lazy"` or explicit width/height attributes (causes layout shift / CLS)
+- Large static assets committed to repo (>500KB per file)
+- Synchronous `<script>` tags without async/defer
+- CSS `@import` in stylesheets (blocks parallel loading — use bundler imports instead)
+- `useEffect` with fetch that depends on another fetch result (request waterfall — combine or parallelize)
+- Named → default import switches on tree-shakeable libraries (breaks tree-shaking)
+- New `require()` calls in ESM codebases
+
+**DO NOT flag:**
+- devDependencies additions (don't affect production bundle)
+- Dynamic `import()` calls (code splitting — these are good)
+- Small utility additions (<5KB gzipped)
+- Server-side-only dependencies
+
 ---
 
 ## Severity Classification
@@ -123,7 +140,8 @@ CRITICAL (highest severity):      INFORMATIONAL (lower severity):
                                    ├─ Crypto & Entropy
                                    ├─ Time Window Safety
                                    ├─ Type Coercion at Boundaries
-                                   └─ View/Frontend
+                                   ├─ View/Frontend
+                                   └─ Performance & Bundle Impact
 
 All findings are actioned via Fix-First Review. Severity determines
 presentation order and classification of AUTO-FIX vs ASK — critical