merge: resolve conflicts with origin/main

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

.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