chore: merge origin/main, resolve VERSION + CHANGELOG conflicts

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -20,6 +20,15 @@ Hat tip to Jared Friedman for the design.
 - **Vendoring is deprecated.** README no longer recommends copying gstack into your repo. Global install + `--team` is the way. `--local` flag still works but prints a deprecation warning.
 - **Uninstall cleans up hooks.** `gstack-uninstall` now removes the SessionStart hook from `~/.claude/settings.json`.
 
+## [0.15.6.2] - 2026-04-04 — Anti-Skip Review Rule
+
+Review skills now enforce that every section gets evaluated, regardless of plan type. No more "this is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply." If a section genuinely has nothing to flag, say so and move on, but you have to look.
+
+### Added
+
+- **Anti-skip rule in all 4 review skills.** CEO review (sections 1-11), eng review (sections 1-4), design review (passes 1-7), and DX review (passes 1-8) all now require explicit evaluation of every section. Models can no longer skip sections by claiming the plan type makes them irrelevant.
+- **CEO review header fix.** Corrected "10 sections" to "11 sections" to match the actual section count (Section 11 is conditional but exists).
+
 ## [0.15.6.1] - 2026-04-04
 
 ### Fixed

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1082,7 +1082,9 @@ After mode is selected, confirm which implementation approach (from 0C-bis) appl
 Once selected, commit fully. Do not silently drift.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
 
-## Review Sections (10 sections, after scope and mode are agreed)
+## Review Sections (11 sections, after scope and mode are agreed)
+
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-11) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
 ### Section 1: Architecture Review
 Evaluate and diagram:

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -353,7 +353,9 @@ After mode is selected, confirm which implementation approach (from 0C-bis) appl
 Once selected, commit fully. Do not silently drift.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
 
-## Review Sections (10 sections, after scope and mode are agreed)
+## Review Sections (11 sections, after scope and mode are agreed)
+
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-11) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
 ### Section 1: Architecture Review
 Evaluate and diagram:

plan-design-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1063,6 +1063,8 @@ descriptions of what 10/10 looks like.
 
 ## Review Sections (7 passes, after scope is agreed)
 
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-7) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so design passes don't apply" is always wrong — design gaps are where implementation breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
+
 ## Prior Learnings
 
 Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:

plan-design-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -256,6 +256,8 @@ descriptions of what 10/10 looks like.
 
 ## Review Sections (7 passes, after scope is agreed)
 
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-7) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so design passes don't apply" is always wrong — design gaps are where implementation breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
+
 {{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}
 
 ### Pass 1: Information Architecture

plan-devex-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1119,6 +1119,8 @@ Pattern:
 
 ## Review Sections (8 passes, after Step 0 is complete)
 
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-8) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so DX passes don't apply" is always wrong — DX gaps are where adoption breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
+
 ## Prior Learnings
 
 Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:

plan-devex-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -442,6 +442,8 @@ Pattern:
 
 ## Review Sections (8 passes, after Step 0 is complete)
 
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-8) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so DX passes don't apply" is always wrong — DX gaps are where adoption breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
+
 {{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}
 
 ### DX Trend Check

plan-eng-review/SKILL.md

@@ -689,6 +689,8 @@ Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architec
 
 ## Review Sections (after scope is agreed)
 
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-4) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
+
 ## Prior Learnings
 
 Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:

plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -114,6 +114,8 @@ Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architec
 
 ## Review Sections (after scope is agreed)
 
+**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-4) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
+
 {{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}
 
 ### 1. Architecture review