merge: resolve conflicts with origin/main

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

review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -13,7 +13,9 @@ allowed-tools:
   - Write
   - Grep
   - Glob
+  - Agent
   - AskUserQuestion
+  - WebSearch
 ---
 
 {{PREAMBLE}}
@@ -107,6 +109,13 @@ 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+Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns.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.
 
 ---
@@ -231,54 +240,7 @@ 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
-~/.claude/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.
-
----
+{{ADVERSARIAL_STEP}}
 
 ## Important Rules