feat(plan-*-review): anti-shortcut clause in all four review skills

Inserts {{ANTI_SHORTCUT_CLAUSE}} placeholder immediately after the
**Anti-skip rule:** paragraph in plan-{eng,ceo,design,devex}-review
SKILL.md.tmpl. The four templates use different surrounding section
headers (eng "Review Sections (after scope is agreed)" vs ceo/design/devex
variants), so anchoring on the paragraph rather than the heading works
across all four.

Closes the May 2026 transcript-bug loophole: existing STOP gates name
forbidden actions only AFTER a per-section finding is identified. The
anti-shortcut clause adds the pre-emptive rule — "the plan file is the
OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it" — covering
the case the transcript exhibited (skip per-section walk, dump every
finding into one plan write, call ExitPlanMode).

Regenerated SKILL.md for all hosts via bun run gen:skill-docs --host all.

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

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1313,6 +1313,8 @@ Present these mode options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuest
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-11) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+**Anti-shortcut clause:** The plan file is the OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it. Writing every finding into one plan write and calling ExitPlanMode without firing AskUserQuestion is the precise failure mode of the May 2026 transcript bug — the model explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable rather than walking the user through them. If you have ANY non-trivial finding in any review section, the path from finding to ExitPlanMode goes THROUGH AskUserQuestion. Zero findings in every section is the only path to ExitPlanMode that bypasses AskUserQuestion. If you find yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking, stop and call AskUserQuestion now — that's the bug, recognize it.
+
 ### Section 1: Architecture Review
 Evaluate and diagram:
 * Overall system design and component boundaries. Draw the dependency graph.

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -411,6 +411,8 @@ Present these mode options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuest
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-11) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+{{ANTI_SHORTCUT_CLAUSE}}
+
 ### Section 1: Architecture Review
 Evaluate and diagram:
 * Overall system design and component boundaries. Draw the dependency graph.

plan-design-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1328,6 +1328,8 @@ descriptions of what 10/10 looks like.
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-7) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so design passes don't apply" is always wrong — design gaps are where implementation breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+**Anti-shortcut clause:** The plan file is the OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it. Writing every finding into one plan write and calling ExitPlanMode without firing AskUserQuestion is the precise failure mode of the May 2026 transcript bug — the model explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable rather than walking the user through them. If you have ANY non-trivial finding in any review section, the path from finding to ExitPlanMode goes THROUGH AskUserQuestion. Zero findings in every section is the only path to ExitPlanMode that bypasses AskUserQuestion. If you find yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking, stop and call AskUserQuestion now — that's the bug, recognize it.
+
 ## Prior Learnings
 
 Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:

plan-design-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -265,6 +265,8 @@ descriptions of what 10/10 looks like.
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-7) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so design passes don't apply" is always wrong — design gaps are where implementation breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+{{ANTI_SHORTCUT_CLAUSE}}
+
 {{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}
 
 ### Pass 1: Information Architecture

plan-devex-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1299,6 +1299,8 @@ Pattern:
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-8) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so DX passes don't apply" is always wrong — DX gaps are where adoption breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+**Anti-shortcut clause:** The plan file is the OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it. Writing every finding into one plan write and calling ExitPlanMode without firing AskUserQuestion is the precise failure mode of the May 2026 transcript bug — the model explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable rather than walking the user through them. If you have ANY non-trivial finding in any review section, the path from finding to ExitPlanMode goes THROUGH AskUserQuestion. Zero findings in every section is the only path to ExitPlanMode that bypasses AskUserQuestion. If you find yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking, stop and call AskUserQuestion now — that's the bug, recognize it.
+
 ## Prior Learnings
 
 Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:

plan-devex-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -449,6 +449,8 @@ Pattern:
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-8) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so DX passes don't apply" is always wrong — DX gaps are where adoption breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+{{ANTI_SHORTCUT_CLAUSE}}
+
 {{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}
 
 ### DX Trend Check

plan-eng-review/SKILL.md

@@ -875,6 +875,8 @@ Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architec
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-4) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+**Anti-shortcut clause:** The plan file is the OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it. Writing every finding into one plan write and calling ExitPlanMode without firing AskUserQuestion is the precise failure mode of the May 2026 transcript bug — the model explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable rather than walking the user through them. If you have ANY non-trivial finding in any review section, the path from finding to ExitPlanMode goes THROUGH AskUserQuestion. Zero findings in every section is the only path to ExitPlanMode that bypasses AskUserQuestion. If you find yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking, stop and call AskUserQuestion now — that's the bug, recognize it.
+
 ## Prior Learnings
 
 Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:

plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -127,6 +127,8 @@ Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architec
 
 **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-4) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
 
+{{ANTI_SHORTCUT_CLAUSE}}
+
 {{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}
 
 ### 1. Architecture review