test(fixtures): regenerate ship-SKILL.md golden baselines

ship/SKILL.md consumes the Confidence Calibration resolver via the
preamble pipeline. This wave's #1539 pre-emit verification gate extends
the resolver text, which propagated to ship/SKILL.md via gen:skill-docs.
The golden fixtures in test/fixtures/golden/ matched the pre-#1539 shape
and failed the host-config regression check.

Refreshes claude-ship-SKILL.md, codex-ship-SKILL.md, and factory-ship-SKILL.md
to match the current generated output. Matches the Daegu wave's bisect
commit 23 ("test(fixtures): regenerate ship-SKILL.md golden baselines").

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

test/fixtures/golden/claude-ship-SKILL.md

@@ -1921,6 +1921,43 @@ Example:
 \`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\`
 \`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\`
 
+### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class)
+
+Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires:
+
+1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus
+   the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field
+   X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field
+   would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization.
+   If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B.
+
+2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.**
+   Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes
+   into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT
+   see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing
+   speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate.
+
+**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework
+metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django
+`Meta`, Rails `has_many`/`scope`, SQLAlchemy `relationship`/`Column`,
+TypeORM decorators, Sequelize `init`/`belongsTo`, Prisma generated client),
+quote the meta-construct (the `Meta` block, the migration, the decorator,
+the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body.
+The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I
+grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification
+(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection)
+is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred
+`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md` design doc.
+
+The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539):
+
+| FP class | Why the gate catches it |
+|---|---|
+| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious |
+| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's `cleaned_data` is `{}`-initialized) |
+| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition |
+| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident |
+
 **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user
 confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was
 too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with

test/fixtures/golden/codex-ship-SKILL.md

@@ -1883,6 +1883,43 @@ Example:
 \`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\`
 \`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\`
 
+### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class)
+
+Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires:
+
+1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus
+   the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field
+   X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field
+   would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization.
+   If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B.
+
+2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.**
+   Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes
+   into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT
+   see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing
+   speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate.
+
+**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework
+metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django
+`Meta`, Rails `has_many`/`scope`, SQLAlchemy `relationship`/`Column`,
+TypeORM decorators, Sequelize `init`/`belongsTo`, Prisma generated client),
+quote the meta-construct (the `Meta` block, the migration, the decorator,
+the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body.
+The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I
+grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification
+(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection)
+is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred
+`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md` design doc.
+
+The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539):
+
+| FP class | Why the gate catches it |
+|---|---|
+| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious |
+| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's `cleaned_data` is `{}`-initialized) |
+| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition |
+| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident |
+
 **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user
 confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was
 too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with

test/fixtures/golden/factory-ship-SKILL.md

@@ -1912,6 +1912,43 @@ Example:
 \`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\`
 \`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\`
 
+### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class)
+
+Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires:
+
+1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus
+   the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field
+   X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field
+   would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization.
+   If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B.
+
+2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.**
+   Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes
+   into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT
+   see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing
+   speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate.
+
+**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework
+metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django
+`Meta`, Rails `has_many`/`scope`, SQLAlchemy `relationship`/`Column`,
+TypeORM decorators, Sequelize `init`/`belongsTo`, Prisma generated client),
+quote the meta-construct (the `Meta` block, the migration, the decorator,
+the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body.
+The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I
+grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification
+(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection)
+is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred
+`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md` design doc.
+
+The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539):
+
+| FP class | Why the gate catches it |
+|---|---|
+| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious |
+| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's `cleaned_data` is `{}`-initialized) |
+| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition |
+| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident |
+
 **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user
 confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was
 too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with