feat: integrate design review lite into /review and /ship

Add generateDesignReviewLite() resolver, insert {{DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE}}
partial in review Step 4.5 and ship Step 3.5. Update dashboard to
recognize design-review-lite entries. Ship pre-flight uses
gstack-diff-scope for smarter design review recommendations.

review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -75,6 +75,14 @@ Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions
 
 ---
 
+## Step 4.5: Design Review (conditional)
+
+{{DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE}}
+
+Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the same Fix-First flow in Step 5 — AUTO-FIX for mechanical CSS fixes, ASK for everything else.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 5: Fix-First Review
 
 **Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**

scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts

@@ -519,6 +519,45 @@ Minimum 0 per category.
 11. **Show screenshots to the user.** After every \`$B screenshot\`, \`$B snapshot -a -o\`, or \`$B responsive\` command, use the Read tool on the output file(s) so the user can see them inline. For \`responsive\` (3 files), Read all three. This is critical — without it, screenshots are invisible to the user.`;
 }
 
+function generateDesignReviewLite(): string {
+  return `## Design Review (conditional, diff-scoped)
+
+Check if the diff touches frontend files using \`gstack-diff-scope\`:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+eval $(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)
+\`\`\`
+
+**If \`SCOPE_FRONTEND=false\`:** Skip design review silently. No output.
+
+**If \`SCOPE_FRONTEND=true\`:**
+
+1. **Check for DESIGN.md.** If \`DESIGN.md\` or \`design-system.md\` exists in the repo root, read it. All design findings are calibrated against it — patterns blessed in DESIGN.md are not flagged. If not found, use universal design principles.
+
+2. **Read \`.claude/skills/review/design-checklist.md\`.** If the file cannot be read, skip design review with a note: "Design checklist not found — skipping design review."
+
+3. **Read each changed frontend file** (full file, not just diff hunks). Frontend files are identified by the patterns listed in the checklist.
+
+4. **Apply the design checklist** against the changed files. For each item:
+   - **[HIGH] mechanical CSS fix** (\`outline: none\`, \`!important\`, \`font-size < 16px\`): classify as AUTO-FIX
+   - **[HIGH/MEDIUM] design judgment needed**: classify as ASK
+   - **[LOW] intent-based detection**: present as "Possible — verify visually or run /qa-design-review"
+
+5. **Include findings** in the review output under a "Design Review" header, following the output format in the checklist. Design findings merge with code review findings into the same Fix-First flow.
+
+6. **Log the result** for the Review Readiness Dashboard:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+eval $(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)
+mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+echo '{"skill":"design-review-lite","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","findings":N,"auto_fixed":M}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
+\`\`\`
+
+Substitute: TIMESTAMP = ISO 8601 datetime, STATUS = "clean" if 0 findings or "issues_found", N = total findings, M = auto-fixed count.`;
+}
+
+// NOTE: design-checklist.md is a subset of this methodology for code-level detection.
+// When adding items here, also update review/design-checklist.md, and vice versa.
 function generateDesignMethodology(): string {
   return `## Modes
 
@@ -865,7 +904,7 @@ echo "---CONFIG---"
 ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get skip_eng_review 2>/dev/null || echo "false"
 \`\`\`
 
-Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. Display:
+Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between \`plan-design-review\` (full visual audit) and \`design-review-lite\` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
 
 \`\`\`
 +====================================================================+
@@ -1056,6 +1095,7 @@ const RESOLVERS: Record<string, () => string> = {
   BASE_BRANCH_DETECT: generateBaseBranchDetect,
   QA_METHODOLOGY: generateQAMethodology,
   DESIGN_METHODOLOGY: generateDesignMethodology,
+  DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE: generateDesignReviewLite,
   REVIEW_DASHBOARD: generateReviewDashboard,
   TEST_BOOTSTRAP: generateTestBootstrap,
 };

ship/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ If the Eng Review is NOT "CLEAR":
    - Show that Eng Review is missing or has open issues
    - RECOMMENDATION: Choose C if the change is obviously trivial (< 20 lines, typo fix, config-only); Choose B for larger changes
    - Options: A) Ship anyway  B) Abort — run /plan-eng-review first  C) Change is too small to need eng review
-   - If CEO/Design reviews are missing, mention them as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block or recommend aborting for them
+   - If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block
+   - For Design Review: run `eval $(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)`. If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=true` and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 3.5, but consider running /plan-design-review for a full visual audit." Still never block.
 
 3. **If the user chooses A or C,** persist the decision so future `/ship` runs on this branch skip the gate:
    ```bash
@@ -334,6 +335,10 @@ Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.
    - **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** SQL & Data Safety, LLM Output Trust Boundary
    - **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** All remaining categories
 
+{{DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE}}
+
+   Include any design findings alongside the code review findings. They follow the same Fix-First flow below.
+
 4. **Classify each finding as AUTO-FIX or ASK** per the Fix-First Heuristic in
    checklist.md. Critical findings lean toward ASK; informational lean toward AUTO-FIX.
 
@@ -555,7 +560,11 @@ gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
 <If Step 3.4 ran: "Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)">
 
 ## Pre-Landing Review
-<findings from Step 3.5, or "No issues found.">
+<findings from Step 3.5 code review, or "No issues found.">
+
+## Design Review
+<If design review ran: "Design Review (lite): N findings — M auto-fixed, K skipped. AI Slop: clean/N issues.">
+<If no frontend files changed: "No frontend files changed — design review skipped.">
 
 ## Eval Results
 <If evals ran: suite names, pass/fail counts, cost dashboard summary. If skipped: "No prompt-related files changed — evals skipped.">