fix(review): pass Review Army checklists by path, run research alongside dispatch, always probe the design detector; state review-log invocation and statuses in the caller fixture

- review-army-perf-n-plus-one: the parent copied full checklists into agent
  prompts and ran web research before dispatch (290 s on a 12-line diff); 212 s now.
- review-design-lite: 5 of 6 captured trials reported the detector absent
  without probing; the probe is mandatory and its first line is reported, and
  the contract credits only fake-engine rule ids the checklist never names.
- review-exploratory-small-cli: the fixture never gave review-log's direct
  invocation or status vocabulary; the model ran it through bun and wrote
  status "blocked". The prompt states both and the validator rejects
  out-of-vocabulary review statuses.
Each case passed a focused paid run after repair.

ship/sections/review-army.md

@@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ so they run in parallel. Each subagent has fresh context — no prior review bia
 
 Construct the prompt for each specialist. The prompt includes:
 
-1. The specialist's checklist content (you already read the file above)
+1. The specialist's checklist path from the selection above (the subagent reads it; never paste its content)
 2. Stack context: "This is a {STACK} project."
 3. Past learnings for this domain (if any exist):
 
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ If learnings are found, include them: "Past learnings for this domain: {learning
 
 4. Instructions:
 
-"You are a specialist code reviewer. Read the checklist below, then run
+"You are a specialist code reviewer. Read the checklist at {checklist path}, then run
 `DIFF_BASE=$(git merge-base origin/<base> HEAD) && git diff "$DIFF_BASE"` to get the full diff. Apply the checklist against the diff.
 
 For each finding, output a JSON object on its own line:
@@ -334,10 +334,7 @@ If no findings: output `NO FINDINGS` and nothing else.
 Do not output anything else — no preamble, no summary, no commentary.
 
 Stack context: {STACK}
-Past learnings: {learnings or 'none'}
-
-CHECKLIST:
-{checklist content}"
+Past learnings: {learnings or 'none'}"
 
 **Subagent configuration:**
 - Use `subagent_type: "general-purpose"`
@@ -406,6 +403,7 @@ Only specialist findings enter this header and `quality_score`; core findings do
 Use the merged NON-advisory specialist findings for both counts and score:
 `quality_score = max(0, 10 - (critical_count * 2 + informational_count * 0.5))`
 Cap at 10 and retain for the review-log persist. These are not final unresolved-defect totals.
+Print only this block: the stage 6 activity object and `test_stub` bodies are log and Fix-First data.
 Validated `"advisory": true` findings from any source are excluded from score,
 header, unresolved-defect totals and clean-status blockers. Show them separately;
 they remain ASK-only, never auto-applied. Real defects follow normal Fix-First.
@@ -464,13 +462,13 @@ completion. Advice never permits edits while readers are active or replaces a re
 If activated, dispatch one more subagent via the Agent tool (pass `run_in_background: false` — foreground; subagents default to background since Claude Code v2.1.198).
 
 The Red Team subagent receives:
-1. The red-team checklist from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/red-team.md`
-2. The merged specialist findings from Step 9.2 (so it knows what was already caught)
+1. The red-team checklist path `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/red-team.md` (it reads the file)
+2. The merged specialist findings from Step 9.2, one line each (so it knows what was already caught)
 3. The git diff command
 
 Prompt: "You are a red team reviewer. The code has already been reviewed by N specialists
 who found the following issues: {merged findings summary}. Your job is to find what they
-MISSED. Read the checklist, run `DIFF_BASE=$(git merge-base origin/<base> HEAD) && git diff "$DIFF_BASE"`, and look for gaps.
+MISSED. Read the checklist at {red-team checklist path}, run `DIFF_BASE=$(git merge-base origin/<base> HEAD) && git diff "$DIFF_BASE"`, and look for gaps.
 Output findings as JSON objects (same schema as the specialists). Focus on cross-cutting
 concerns, integration boundary issues, and failure modes that specialist checklists
 don't cover."