merge: resolve conflicts with origin/main

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

.agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md

@@ -125,6 +125,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -358,7 +378,7 @@ The snapshot is your primary tool for understanding and interacting with pages.
 -s <sel>  --selector              Scope to CSS selector
 -D        --diff                  Unified diff against previous snapshot (first call stores baseline)
 -a        --annotate              Annotated screenshot with red overlay boxes and ref labels
--o <path> --output                Output path for annotated screenshot (default: /tmp/browse-annotated.png)
+-o <path> --output                Output path for annotated screenshot (default: <temp>/browse-annotated.png)
 -C        --cursor-interactive    Cursor-interactive elements (@c refs — divs with pointer, onclick)
 ```
 

.agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md

@@ -126,6 +126,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -323,7 +343,12 @@ If browse is not available, rely on WebSearch results and your built-in design k
 
 **Step 3: Synthesize findings**
 
-The goal of research is NOT to copy. It is to get in the ballpark — to understand the visual language users in this category already expect. This gives you the baseline. The interesting design work starts after you have the baseline: deciding where to follow conventions (so the product feels literate) and where to break from them (so the product is memorable).
+**Three-layer synthesis:**
+- **Layer 1 (tried and true):** What design patterns does every product in this category share? These are table stakes — users expect them.
+- **Layer 2 (new and popular):** What are the search results and current design discourse saying? What's trending? What new patterns are emerging?
+- **Layer 3 (first principles):** Given what we know about THIS product's users and positioning — is there a reason the conventional design approach is wrong? Where should we deliberately break from the category norms?
+
+**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine design insight — a reason the category's visual language fails THIS product — name it: "EUREKA: Every [category] product does X because they assume [assumption]. But this product's users [evidence] — so we should do Y instead." Log the eureka moment (see preamble).
 
 Summarize conversationally:
 > "I looked at what's out there. Here's the landscape: they converge on [patterns]. Most of them feel [observation — e.g., interchangeable, polished but generic, etc.]. The opportunity to stand out is [gap]. Here's where I'd play it safe and where I'd take a risk..."

.agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md

@@ -126,6 +126,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.

.agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md

@@ -124,6 +124,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.

.agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md

@@ -127,6 +127,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -289,6 +309,12 @@ Also check:
 - `TODOS.md` for related known issues
 - `git log` for prior fixes in the same area — **recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell**, not a coincidence
 
+**External pattern search:** If the bug doesn't match a known pattern above, WebSearch for:
+- "{framework} {generic error type}" — **sanitize first:** strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL, customer data. Search the error category, not the raw message.
+- "{library} {component} known issues"
+
+If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this search and proceed with hypothesis testing. If a documented solution or known dependency bug surfaces, present it as a candidate hypothesis in Phase 3.
+
 ---
 
 ## Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing
@@ -297,7 +323,7 @@ Before writing ANY fix, verify your hypothesis.
 
 1. **Confirm the hypothesis:** Add a temporary log statement, assertion, or debug output at the suspected root cause. Run the reproduction. Does the evidence match?
 
-2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess.
+2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Before forming the next hypothesis, consider searching for the error. **Sanitize first** — strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL fragments, customer identifiers, and any internal/proprietary data from the error message. Search only the generic error type and framework context: "{component} {sanitized error type} {framework version}". If the error message is too specific to sanitize safely, skip the search. If WebSearch is unavailable, skip and proceed. Then return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess.
 
 3. **3-strike rule:** If 3 hypotheses fail, **STOP**. Use AskUserQuestion:
    ```

.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md

@@ -128,6 +128,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -447,6 +467,43 @@ If no matches found, proceed silently.
 
 ---
 
+## Phase 2.75: Landscape Awareness
+
+Read ETHOS.md for the full Search Before Building framework (three layers, eureka moments). The preamble's Search Before Building section has the ETHOS.md path.
+
+After understanding the problem through questioning, search for what the world thinks. This is NOT competitive research (that's /design-consultation's job). This is understanding conventional wisdom so you can evaluate where it's wrong.
+
+**Privacy gate:** Before searching, use AskUserQuestion: "I'd like to search for what the world thinks about this space to inform our discussion. This sends generalized category terms (not your specific idea) to a search provider. OK to proceed?"
+Options: A) Yes, search away  B) Skip — keep this session private
+If B: skip this phase entirely and proceed to Phase 3. Use only in-distribution knowledge.
+
+When searching, use **generalized category terms** — never the user's specific product name, proprietary concept, or stealth idea. For example, search "task management app landscape" not "SuperTodo AI-powered task killer."
+
+If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this phase and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
+
+**Startup mode:** WebSearch for:
+- "[problem space] startup approach {current year}"
+- "[problem space] common mistakes"
+- "why [incumbent solution] fails" OR "why [incumbent solution] works"
+
+**Builder mode:** WebSearch for:
+- "[thing being built] existing solutions"
+- "[thing being built] open source alternatives"
+- "best [thing category] {current year}"
+
+Read the top 2-3 results. Run the three-layer synthesis:
+- **[Layer 1]** What does everyone already know about this space?
+- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results and current discourse saying?
+- **[Layer 3]** Given what WE learned in Phase 2A/2B — is there a reason the conventional approach is wrong?
+
+**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine insight, name it: "EUREKA: Everyone does X because they assume [assumption]. But [evidence from our conversation] suggests that's wrong here. This means [implication]." Log the eureka moment (see preamble).
+
+If no eureka moment exists, say: "The conventional wisdom seems sound here. Let's build on it." Proceed to Phase 3.
+
+**Important:** This search feeds Phase 3 (Premise Challenge). If you found reasons the conventional approach fails, those become premises to challenge. If conventional wisdom is solid, that raises the bar for any premise that contradicts it.
+
+---
+
 ## Phase 3: Premise Challenge
 
 Before proposing solutions, challenge the premises:

.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md

@@ -127,6 +127,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -324,6 +344,21 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design.
 
+**Handoff note check** (reuses $SLUG and $BRANCH from the design doc check above):
+```bash
+HANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+[ -n "$HANDOFF" ] && echo "HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF" || echo "NO_HANDOFF"
+```
+If this block runs in a separate shell from the design doc check, recompute $SLUG and $BRANCH first using the same commands from that block.
+If a handoff note is found: read it. This contains system audit findings and discussion
+from a prior CEO review session that paused so the user could run `/office-hours`. Use it
+as additional context alongside the design doc. The handoff note helps you avoid re-asking
+questions the user already answered. Do NOT skip any steps — run the full review, but use
+the handoff note to inform your analysis and avoid redundant questions.
+
+Tell the user: "Found a handoff note from your prior CEO review session. I'll use that
+context to pick up where we left off."
+
 ## Prerequisite Skill Offer
 
 When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite
@@ -343,6 +378,39 @@ Options:
 If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
 /office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.
 
+**Handoff note save (BENEFITS_FROM):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first),
+save a handoff context note before they leave. Reuse $SLUG and $BRANCH from the
+design doc check block above (they use the same `remote-slug || basename` fallback
+that handles repos without an origin remote). Then run:
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+USER=$(whoami)
+DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
+```
+Write to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$USER-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-$DATETIME.md`:
+```markdown
+# CEO Review Handoff Note
+
+Generated by /plan-ceo-review on {date}
+Branch: {branch}
+Repo: {owner/repo}
+
+## Why I paused
+User chose to run /office-hours first (no design doc found).
+
+## System Audit Summary
+{Summarize what the system audit found — recent git history, diff scope,
+CLAUDE.md key points, TODOS.md relevant items, known pain points}
+
+## Discussion So Far
+{Empty — handoff happened before Step 0. Frontend/UI scope detection has not
+run yet — it will be assessed when the review resumes.}
+```
+
+Tell the user: "Context saved. Run /office-hours in another window. When you come back
+and invoke /plan-ceo-review, I'll pick up the context automatically — including the
+design doc /office-hours produces."
+
 **Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't
 articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not
 sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`:
@@ -355,6 +423,15 @@ sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`:
 Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going.
 If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking.
 
+**Handoff note save (mid-session):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first from
+mid-session detection), save a handoff context note with the same format above, but
+include any Step 0A progress in the "Discussion So Far" section — premises discussed,
+problem framing attempts, user answers so far. Use the same bash block to generate the
+file path.
+
+Tell the user: "Context saved with your discussion so far. Run /office-hours, then
+come back to /plan-ceo-review."
+
 When reading TODOS.md, specifically:
 * Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks
 * Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan
@@ -377,6 +454,22 @@ Analyze the plan. If it involves ANY of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existi
 Identify 2-3 files or patterns in the existing codebase that are particularly well-designed. Note them as style references for the review. Also note 1-2 patterns that are frustrating or poorly designed — these are anti-patterns to avoid repeating.
 Report findings before proceeding to Step 0.
 
+### Landscape Check
+
+Read ETHOS.md for the Search Before Building framework (the preamble's Search Before Building section has the path). Before challenging scope, understand the landscape. WebSearch for:
+- "[product category] landscape {current year}"
+- "[key feature] alternatives"
+- "why [incumbent/conventional approach] [succeeds/fails]"
+
+If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
+
+Run the three-layer synthesis:
+- **[Layer 1]** What's the tried-and-true approach in this space?
+- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results saying?
+- **[Layer 3]** First-principles reasoning — where might the conventional wisdom be wrong?
+
+Feed into the Premise Challenge (0A) and Dream State Mapping (0C). If you find a eureka moment, surface it during the Expansion opt-in ceremony as a differentiation opportunity. Log it (see preamble).
+
 ## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection
 
 ### 0A. Premise Challenge
@@ -942,6 +1035,16 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate?
 ### Unresolved Decisions
 If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default.
 
+## Handoff Note Cleanup
+
+After producing the Completion Summary, clean up any handoff notes for this branch —
+the review is complete and the context is no longer needed.
+
+```bash
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)
+rm -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null || true
+```
+
 ## Review Log
 
 After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result.
@@ -953,7 +1056,7 @@ the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
 command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.
 
 ```bash
-~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
+~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","scope_proposed":N,"scope_accepted":N,"scope_deferred":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
 ```
 
 Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completion Summary you just produced:
@@ -962,6 +1065,9 @@ Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completi
 - **unresolved**: number from "Unresolved decisions" in the summary
 - **critical_gaps**: number from "Failure modes: ___ CRITICAL GAPS" in the summary
 - **MODE**: the mode the user selected (SCOPE_EXPANSION / SELECTIVE_EXPANSION / HOLD_SCOPE / SCOPE_REDUCTION)
+- **scope_proposed**: number from "Scope proposals: ___ proposed" in the summary (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
+- **scope_accepted**: number from "Scope proposals: ___ accepted" in the summary (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
+- **scope_deferred**: number of items deferred to TODOS.md from scope decisions (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
 - **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
 
 ## Review Readiness Dashboard
@@ -972,7 +1078,7 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
 ~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
 ```
 
-Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, codex-review, land-and-deploy). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For Deployed, show the most recent `land-and-deploy` entry with status mapped: SUCCESS→HEALTHY, REVERTED→REVERTED, other→ISSUES. Display:
+Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
 
 ```
 +====================================================================+
@@ -983,8 +1089,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 | Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
 | CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 | Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Codex Review    |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Deployed        |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
 +====================================================================+
@@ -994,8 +1099,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 - **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
 - **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
 - **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
-- **Codex Review (optional):** Independent second opinion from OpenAI Codex CLI. Shows pass/fail gate. Recommend for critical code changes where a second AI perspective adds value. Skip when Codex CLI is not installed.
-- **Deployed (informational):** Shows whether the most recent PR on this branch was successfully deployed and verified via \`/land-and-deploy\`. Status: HEALTHY, REVERTED, or ISSUES. Never gates shipping.
+- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
 
 **Verdict logic:**
 - **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
@@ -1009,6 +1113,73 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 - For entries without a \`commit\` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
 - If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes
 
+## Plan File Review Report
+
+After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the
+**plan file** itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.
+
+### Detect the plan file
+
+1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file
+   paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
+2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.
+
+### Generate the report
+
+Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above.
+Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:
+
+- **plan-ceo-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`mode\`, \`scope_proposed\`, \`scope_accepted\`, \`scope_deferred\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred"
+  → If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
+- **plan-eng-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`issues_found\`, \`mode\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
+- **plan-design-review**: \`status\`, \`initial_score\`, \`overall_score\`, \`unresolved\`, \`decisions_made\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
+- **codex-review**: \`status\`, \`gate\`, \`findings\`, \`findings_fixed\`
+  → Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"
+
+All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries.
+For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion
+Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.
+
+Produce this markdown table:
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
+
+| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
+|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
+| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+\`\`\`
+
+Below the table, add these lines (omit any that are empty/not applicable):
+
+- **CODEX:** (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
+- **CROSS-MODEL:** (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
+- **UNRESOLVED:** total unresolved decisions across all reviews
+- **VERDICT:** list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement").
+  If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".
+
+### Write to the plan file
+
+**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.
+
+- Search the plan file for a \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` section **anywhere** in the file
+  (not just at the end — content may have been added after it).
+- If found, **replace it** entirely using the Edit tool. Match from \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`
+  through either the next \`## \` heading or end of file, whichever comes first. This ensures
+  content added after the report section is preserved, not eaten. If the Edit fails
+  (e.g., concurrent edit changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
+- If no such section exists, **append it** to the end of the plan file.
+- Always place it as the very last section in the plan file. If it was found mid-file,
+  move it: delete the old location and append at the end.
+
 ## Next Steps — Review Chaining
 
 After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this CEO review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.

.agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md

@@ -126,6 +126,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -488,13 +508,14 @@ the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
 command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.
 
 ```bash
-~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","overall_score":N,"unresolved":N,"decisions_made":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
+~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"unresolved":N,"decisions_made":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
 ```
 
 Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
 - **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime
 - **STATUS**: "clean" if overall score 8+ AND 0 unresolved; otherwise "issues_open"
-- **overall_score**: final overall design score (0-10)
+- **initial_score**: initial overall design score before fixes (0-10)
+- **overall_score**: final overall design score after fixes (0-10)
 - **unresolved**: number of unresolved design decisions
 - **decisions_made**: number of design decisions added to the plan
 - **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
@@ -507,7 +528,7 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
 ~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
 ```
 
-Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, codex-review, land-and-deploy). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For Deployed, show the most recent `land-and-deploy` entry with status mapped: SUCCESS→HEALTHY, REVERTED→REVERTED, other→ISSUES. Display:
+Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
 
 ```
 +====================================================================+
@@ -518,8 +539,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 | Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
 | CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 | Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Codex Review    |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Deployed        |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
 +====================================================================+
@@ -529,8 +549,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 - **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
 - **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
 - **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
-- **Codex Review (optional):** Independent second opinion from OpenAI Codex CLI. Shows pass/fail gate. Recommend for critical code changes where a second AI perspective adds value. Skip when Codex CLI is not installed.
-- **Deployed (informational):** Shows whether the most recent PR on this branch was successfully deployed and verified via \`/land-and-deploy\`. Status: HEALTHY, REVERTED, or ISSUES. Never gates shipping.
+- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
 
 **Verdict logic:**
 - **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
@@ -544,6 +563,73 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 - For entries without a \`commit\` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
 - If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes
 
+## Plan File Review Report
+
+After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the
+**plan file** itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.
+
+### Detect the plan file
+
+1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file
+   paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
+2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.
+
+### Generate the report
+
+Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above.
+Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:
+
+- **plan-ceo-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`mode\`, \`scope_proposed\`, \`scope_accepted\`, \`scope_deferred\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred"
+  → If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
+- **plan-eng-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`issues_found\`, \`mode\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
+- **plan-design-review**: \`status\`, \`initial_score\`, \`overall_score\`, \`unresolved\`, \`decisions_made\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
+- **codex-review**: \`status\`, \`gate\`, \`findings\`, \`findings_fixed\`
+  → Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"
+
+All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries.
+For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion
+Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.
+
+Produce this markdown table:
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
+
+| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
+|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
+| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+\`\`\`
+
+Below the table, add these lines (omit any that are empty/not applicable):
+
+- **CODEX:** (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
+- **CROSS-MODEL:** (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
+- **UNRESOLVED:** total unresolved decisions across all reviews
+- **VERDICT:** list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement").
+  If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".
+
+### Write to the plan file
+
+**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.
+
+- Search the plan file for a \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` section **anywhere** in the file
+  (not just at the end — content may have been added after it).
+- If found, **replace it** entirely using the Edit tool. Match from \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`
+  through either the next \`## \` heading or end of file, whichever comes first. This ensures
+  content added after the report section is preserved, not eaten. If the Edit fails
+  (e.g., concurrent edit changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
+- If no such section exists, **append it** to the end of the plan file.
+- Always place it as the very last section in the plan file. If it was found mid-file,
+  move it: delete the old location and append at the end.
+
 ## Next Steps — Review Chaining
 
 After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this design review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.

.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md

@@ -125,6 +125,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -293,7 +313,15 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
 1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
 2. **What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal?** Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective. Be ruthless about scope creep.
 3. **Complexity check:** If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
-4. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
+4. **Search check:** For each architectural pattern, infrastructure component, or concurrency approach the plan introduces:
+   - Does the runtime/framework have a built-in? Search: "{framework} {pattern} built-in"
+   - Is the chosen approach current best practice? Search: "{pattern} best practice {current year}"
+   - Are there known footguns? Search: "{framework} {pattern} pitfalls"
+
+   If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
+
+   If the plan rolls a custom solution where a built-in exists, flag it as a scope reduction opportunity. Annotate recommendations with **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**, **[Layer 3]**, or **[EUREKA]** (see preamble's Search Before Building section). If you find a eureka moment — a reason the standard approach is wrong for this case — present it as an architectural insight.
+5. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
 
 5. **Completeness check:** Is the plan doing the complete version or a shortcut? With AI-assisted coding, the cost of completeness (100% test coverage, full edge case handling, complete error paths) is 10-100x cheaper than with a human team. If the plan proposes a shortcut that saves human-hours but only saves minutes with CC+gstack, recommend the complete version. Boil the lake.
 
@@ -477,7 +505,7 @@ the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
 command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.
 
 ```bash
-~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-eng-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
+~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-eng-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"issues_found":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
 ```
 
 Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
@@ -485,6 +513,7 @@ Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
 - **STATUS**: "clean" if 0 unresolved decisions AND 0 critical gaps; otherwise "issues_open"
 - **unresolved**: number from "Unresolved decisions" count
 - **critical_gaps**: number from "Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged"
+- **issues_found**: total issues found across all review sections (Architecture + Code Quality + Performance + Test gaps)
 - **MODE**: FULL_REVIEW / SCOPE_REDUCED
 - **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
 
@@ -496,7 +525,7 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
 ~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
 ```
 
-Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, codex-review, land-and-deploy). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For Deployed, show the most recent `land-and-deploy` entry with status mapped: SUCCESS→HEALTHY, REVERTED→REVERTED, other→ISSUES. Display:
+Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
 
 ```
 +====================================================================+
@@ -507,8 +536,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 | Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
 | CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 | Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Codex Review    |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Deployed        |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
 +====================================================================+
@@ -518,8 +546,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 - **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
 - **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
 - **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
-- **Codex Review (optional):** Independent second opinion from OpenAI Codex CLI. Shows pass/fail gate. Recommend for critical code changes where a second AI perspective adds value. Skip when Codex CLI is not installed.
-- **Deployed (informational):** Shows whether the most recent PR on this branch was successfully deployed and verified via \`/land-and-deploy\`. Status: HEALTHY, REVERTED, or ISSUES. Never gates shipping.
+- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
 
 **Verdict logic:**
 - **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
@@ -533,6 +560,73 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 - For entries without a \`commit\` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
 - If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes
 
+## Plan File Review Report
+
+After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the
+**plan file** itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.
+
+### Detect the plan file
+
+1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file
+   paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
+2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.
+
+### Generate the report
+
+Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above.
+Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:
+
+- **plan-ceo-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`mode\`, \`scope_proposed\`, \`scope_accepted\`, \`scope_deferred\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred"
+  → If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
+- **plan-eng-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`issues_found\`, \`mode\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
+- **plan-design-review**: \`status\`, \`initial_score\`, \`overall_score\`, \`unresolved\`, \`decisions_made\`, \`commit\`
+  → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
+- **codex-review**: \`status\`, \`gate\`, \`findings\`, \`findings_fixed\`
+  → Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"
+
+All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries.
+For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion
+Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.
+
+Produce this markdown table:
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
+
+| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
+|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
+| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
+\`\`\`
+
+Below the table, add these lines (omit any that are empty/not applicable):
+
+- **CODEX:** (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
+- **CROSS-MODEL:** (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
+- **UNRESOLVED:** total unresolved decisions across all reviews
+- **VERDICT:** list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement").
+  If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".
+
+### Write to the plan file
+
+**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.
+
+- Search the plan file for a \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` section **anywhere** in the file
+  (not just at the end — content may have been added after it).
+- If found, **replace it** entirely using the Edit tool. Match from \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`
+  through either the next \`## \` heading or end of file, whichever comes first. This ensures
+  content added after the report section is preserved, not eaten. If the Edit fails
+  (e.g., concurrent edit changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
+- If no such section exists, **append it** to the end of the plan file.
+- Always place it as the very last section in the plan file. If it was found mid-file,
+  move it: delete the old location and append at the end.
+
 ## Next Steps — Review Chaining
 
 After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, check if additional reviews would be valuable. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.

.agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md

@@ -124,6 +124,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.

.agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md

@@ -127,6 +127,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.

.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md

@@ -124,6 +124,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -369,6 +389,20 @@ If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip the Backlog Health row.
 
 If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Skill Usage row.
 
+**Eureka Moments (if logged):** Read `~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl` if it exists. Filter entries within the retro time window by `ts` field. For each eureka moment, show the skill that flagged it, the branch, and a one-line summary of the insight. Present as:
+
+```
+| Eureka Moments | 2 this period |
+```
+
+If moments exist, list them:
+```
+  EUREKA /office-hours (branch: garrytan/auth-rethink): "Session tokens don't need server storage — browser crypto API makes client-side JWT validation viable"
+  EUREKA /plan-eng-review (branch: garrytan/cache-layer): "Redis isn't needed here — Bun's built-in LRU cache handles this workload"
+```
+
+If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Eureka Moments row.
+
 ### Step 3: Commit Time Distribution
 
 Show hourly histogram in local time using bar chart:
@@ -428,7 +462,7 @@ From commit diffs, estimate PR sizes and bucket them:
 - **Small** (<100 LOC)
 - **Medium** (100-500 LOC)
 - **Large** (500-1500 LOC)
-- **XL** (1500+ LOC) — flag these with file counts
+- **XL** (1500+ LOC)
 
 ### Step 8: Focus Score + Ship of the Week
 
@@ -620,14 +654,13 @@ Narrative interpreting what the team-wide patterns mean:
 
 Narrative covering:
 - Commit type mix and what it reveals
-- PR size discipline (are PRs staying small?)
+- PR size distribution and what it reveals about shipping cadence
 - Fix-chain detection (sequences of fix commits on the same subsystem)
 - Version bump discipline
 
 ### Code Quality Signals
 - Test LOC ratio trend
 - Hotspot analysis (are the same files churning?)
-- Any XL PRs that should have been split
 - Greptile signal ratio and trend (if history exists): "Greptile: X% signal (Y valid catches, Z false positives)"
 
 ### Test Health
@@ -666,7 +699,7 @@ For each teammate (sorted by commits descending), write a section:
   - "Fixed the N+1 query that was causing 2s load times on the dashboard"
 - **Opportunity for growth**: 1 specific, constructive suggestion. Frame as investment, not criticism. Examples:
   - "Test coverage on the payment module is at 8% — worth investing in before the next feature lands on top of it"
-  - "3 of the 5 PRs were 800+ LOC — breaking these up would catch issues earlier and make review easier"
+  - "Most commits land in a single burst — spacing work across the day could reduce context-switching fatigue"
   - "All commits land between 1-4am — sustainable pace matters for code quality long-term"
 
 **AI collaboration note:** If many commits have `Co-Authored-By` AI trailers (e.g., Claude, Copilot), note the AI-assisted commit percentage as a team metric. Frame it neutrally — "N% of commits were AI-assisted" — without judgment.

.agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md

@@ -123,6 +123,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -319,6 +339,13 @@ Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes:
 
 **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.
 
 ---
@@ -474,54 +501,7 @@ If no documentation files exist, skip this step silently.
 
 ---
 
-## Step 5.7: Codex second opinion (optional)
 
-After completing the review, check if the Codex CLI is available:
-
-```bash
-which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
-```
-
-If Codex is available, use AskUserQuestion:
-
-```
-Review complete. Want an independent second opinion from Codex (OpenAI)?
-
-A) Run Codex code review — independent diff review with pass/fail gate
-B) Run Codex adversarial challenge — try to find ways this code will fail in production
-C) Both — review first, then adversarial challenge
-D) Skip — no Codex review needed
-```
-
-If the user chooses A, B, or C:
-
-**For code review (A or C):** Run `codex review --base <base>` with a 5-minute timeout.
-Present the full output verbatim under a `CODEX SAYS (code review):` header.
-Check the output for `[P1]` markers — if found, note `GATE: FAIL`, otherwise `GATE: PASS`.
-After presenting, compare Codex's findings with your own review findings from Steps 4-5
-and output a CROSS-MODEL ANALYSIS showing what both found, what only Codex found,
-and what only Claude found.
-
-**For adversarial challenge (B or C):** Run:
-```bash
-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, failure modes. Be adversarial." -s read-only
-```
-Present the full output verbatim under a `CODEX SAYS (adversarial challenge):` header.
-
-**Only if a code review ran (user chose A or C):** Persist the Codex review result to the review log:
-```bash
-~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"codex-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","gate":"GATE"}'
-```
-
-Substitute: STATUS ("clean" if PASS, "issues_found" if FAIL), GATE ("pass" or "fail").
-
-**Do NOT persist a codex-review entry when only the adversarial challenge (B) ran** —
-there is no gate verdict to record, and a false entry would make the Review Readiness
-Dashboard believe a code review happened when it didn't.
-
-If Codex is not available, skip this step silently.
-
----
 
 ## Important Rules
 

.agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md

@@ -123,6 +123,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.

.agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md

@@ -121,6 +121,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -274,7 +294,7 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
 ~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
 ```
 
-Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, codex-review, land-and-deploy). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For Deployed, show the most recent `land-and-deploy` entry with status mapped: SUCCESS→HEALTHY, REVERTED→REVERTED, other→ISSUES. Display:
+Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
 
 ```
 +====================================================================+
@@ -285,8 +305,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 | Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
 | CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 | Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Codex Review    |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
-| Deployed        |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
 +====================================================================+
@@ -296,8 +315,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
 - **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
 - **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
 - **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
-- **Codex Review (optional):** Independent second opinion from OpenAI Codex CLI. Shows pass/fail gate. Recommend for critical code changes where a second AI perspective adds value. Skip when Codex CLI is not installed.
-- **Deployed (informational):** Shows whether the most recent PR on this branch was successfully deployed and verified via \`/land-and-deploy\`. Status: HEALTHY, REVERTED, or ISSUES. Never gates shipping.
+- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
 
 **Verdict logic:**
 - **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
@@ -839,43 +857,7 @@ For each classified comment:
 
 ---
 
-## Step 3.8: Codex second opinion (optional)
 
-Check if the Codex CLI is available:
-
-```bash
-which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
-```
-
-If Codex is available, use AskUserQuestion:
-
-```
-Pre-landing review complete. Want an independent Codex (OpenAI) review before shipping?
-
-A) Run Codex code review — independent diff review with pass/fail gate
-B) Run Codex adversarial challenge — try to break this code
-C) Skip — ship without Codex review
-```
-
-If the user chooses A or B:
-
-**For code review (A):** Run `codex review --base <base>` with a 5-minute timeout.
-Present the full output verbatim under a `CODEX SAYS:` header. Check for `[P1]` markers
-to determine pass/fail gate. Persist the result:
-
-```bash
-~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"codex-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","gate":"GATE"}'
-```
-
-If GATE is FAIL, use AskUserQuestion: "Codex found critical issues. Ship anyway?"
-If the user says no, stop. If yes, continue to Step 4.
-
-**For adversarial (B):** Run codex exec with the adversarial prompt (see /codex skill).
-Present findings. This is informational — does not block shipping.
-
-If Codex is not available, skip silently. Continue to Step 4.
-
----
 
 ## Step 4: Version bump (auto-decide)
 
@@ -1116,7 +1098,7 @@ doc updates — the user runs `/ship` and documentation stays current without a
 - **Never skip tests.** If tests fail, stop.
 - **Never skip the pre-landing review.** If checklist.md is unreadable, stop.
 - **Never force push.** Use regular `git push` only.
-- **Never ask for confirmation** except for MINOR/MAJOR version bumps and pre-landing review ASK items (batched into at most one AskUserQuestion).
+- **Never ask for trivial confirmations** (e.g., "ready to push?", "create PR?"). DO stop for: version bumps (MINOR/MAJOR), pre-landing review findings (ASK items), and Codex structured review [P1] findings (large diffs only).
 - **Always use the 4-digit version format** from the VERSION file.
 - **Date format in CHANGELOG:** `YYYY-MM-DD`
 - **Split commits for bisectability** — each commit = one logical change.

.agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md

@@ -156,6 +156,26 @@ 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.")
 
+## Search Before Building
+
+Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/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.
@@ -486,7 +506,7 @@ The snapshot is your primary tool for understanding and interacting with pages.
 -s <sel>  --selector              Scope to CSS selector
 -D        --diff                  Unified diff against previous snapshot (first call stores baseline)
 -a        --annotate              Annotated screenshot with red overlay boxes and ref labels
--o <path> --output                Output path for annotated screenshot (default: /tmp/browse-annotated.png)
+-o <path> --output                Output path for annotated screenshot (default: <temp>/browse-annotated.png)
 -C        --cursor-interactive    Cursor-interactive elements (@c refs — divs with pointer, onclick)
 ```