fix: resolve merge conflicts with origin/main (v0.6.1 qa-design-review → design-review rename)

Conflicts resolved:
- README.md: kept install section + office-hours/debug skills, adopted
  main's design-review rename and restructured footer
- design-review/SKILL.md: took main's version (renamed from qa-design-review)
- plan-design-review/SKILL.md: took main's version with base branch detect
- Updated install instructions to use /design-review (not /qa-design-review)
- Updated skill count to 15 in footer

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

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 /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." 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.
 
@@ -577,7 +582,11 @@ 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.">