fix: add missing PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT resolvers to monolithic gen-skill-docs

The merge from main brought review/SKILL.md.tmpl with {{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW}},
{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP}}, and {{PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC}} placeholders, but the
local RESOLVERS map in the monolithic gen-skill-docs.ts didn't have entries for them.
Import the functions from scripts/resolvers/review.ts and register them.

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

review/SKILL.md

@@ -762,21 +762,6 @@ If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, n
 
 **Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
 
-### Coverage Warning
-
-After producing the coverage diagram, check the coverage percentage. Read CLAUDE.md for a `## Test Coverage` section with a `Minimum:` field. If not found, use default: 60%.
-
-If coverage is below the minimum threshold, output a prominent warning **before** the regular review findings:
-
-```
-⚠️ COVERAGE WARNING: AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths untested.
-Consider writing tests before running /ship.
-```
-
-This is INFORMATIONAL — does not block /review. But it makes low coverage visible early so the developer can address it before reaching the /ship coverage gate.
-
-If coverage percentage cannot be determined, skip the warning silently.
-
 This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
 
 ---

scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts

@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ import type { Host, TemplateContext } from './resolvers/types';
 import { HOST_PATHS } from './resolvers/types';
 import { RESOLVERS } from './resolvers/index';
 import { codexSkillName, transformFrontmatter, extractHookSafetyProse, extractNameAndDescription, condenseOpenAIShortDescription, generateOpenAIYaml } from './resolvers/codex-helpers';
+import { generatePlanCompletionAuditShip, generatePlanCompletionAuditReview, generatePlanVerificationExec } from './resolvers/review';
 
 const ROOT = path.resolve(import.meta.dir, '..');
 const DRY_RUN = process.argv.includes('--dry-run');
@@ -2828,6 +2829,9 @@ const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
   ADVERSARIAL_STEP: generateAdversarialStep,
   DEPLOY_BOOTSTRAP: generateDeployBootstrap,
   CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW: generateCodexPlanReview,
+  PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP: generatePlanCompletionAuditShip,
+  PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW: generatePlanCompletionAuditReview,
+  PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC: generatePlanVerificationExec,
 };
 
 // ─── Codex Helpers ───────────────────────────────────────────

ship/SKILL.md

@@ -999,39 +999,6 @@ find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec
 For PR body: `Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)`
 Coverage line: `Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.`
 
-**7. Coverage gate:**
-
-Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a `## Test Coverage` section with `Minimum:` and `Target:` fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
-
-Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the `COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%)` line):
-
-- **>= target:** Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
-- **>= minimum, < target:** Use AskUserQuestion:
-  - "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
-  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
-  - Options:
-    A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
-    B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk
-    C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
-  - If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
-  - If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
-  - If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
-
-- **< minimum:** Use AskUserQuestion:
-  - "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
-  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
-  - Options:
-    A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
-    B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
-  - If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
-  - If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
-
-**Coverage percentage undetermined:** If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), **skip the gate** with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
-
-**Test-only diffs:** Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
-
-**100% coverage:** "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.
-
 ### Test Plan Artifact
 
 After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it: