fix(plan-reviews): tighten STOP/escape-hatch directives across 4 templates

Part 2 of 4 (plan: ~/.claude/plans/system-instruction-you-are-working-polymorphic-twilight.md).

Codex caught that v1.6.3.0's reasoning collapsed on Opus 4.7: the old
escape-hatch wording ("If no issues or fix is obvious, state what
you'll do and move on — don't waste a question") let the literal
interpreter classify every finding as having an "obvious fix" and skip
AskUserQuestion entirely. Reviews became reports.

Per-template hardening (16 sites total, verified by rg):

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl (13 sites):
- 12 inline STOP directives: replace the full escape-hatch clause with
  "zero findings → say so and proceed; findings → MUST call AskUserQuestion
  as a tool_use, including for obvious fixes."
- 1 Escape hatch bullet in CRITICAL RULE section: tightened.

plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, plan-devex-review (1 site each):
- Each template's Escape hatch bullet tightened to match the new CEO wording,
  adapted for each review's domain (issue/gap, decision/design/DX alternatives).

After regeneration: rg "don't waste a question" returns 0 across all
*SKILL.md.tmpl and *SKILL.md files. "zero findings, state" wording
present 16 times (matches prior count of escape-hatch sites).

bun test passes.

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

plan-eng-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1407,7 +1407,7 @@ Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for
 * **Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference (DRY, explicit > clever, minimal diff, etc.).
 * Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
 * **Coverage vs kind:** for every per-issue AskUserQuestion you raise in this review, decide whether the options differ in coverage or in kind. If coverage (e.g., more tests vs fewer, complete error handling vs happy-path-only, full edge-case coverage vs shortcut), include `Completeness: N/10` on each option. If kind (e.g., architectural choice between two different systems, posture-over-posture, A/B/C where each is a different kind of thing), skip the score and add one line: `Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.` Do NOT fabricate scores on kind-differentiated questions — filler scores are worse than no score.
-* **Escape hatch:** If a section has no issues, say so and move on. If an issue has an obvious fix with no real alternatives, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question on it. Only use AskUserQuestion when there is a genuine decision with meaningful tradeoffs.
+* **Escape hatch (tightened):** If a section has zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If it has findings, use AskUserQuestion for each — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Only skip AskUserQuestion when the decision is genuinely trivial (e.g., a typo fix) AND there are no meaningful alternatives. When in doubt, ask.
 
 ## Required outputs
 

plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for
 * **Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference (DRY, explicit > clever, minimal diff, etc.).
 * Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
 * **Coverage vs kind:** for every per-issue AskUserQuestion you raise in this review, decide whether the options differ in coverage or in kind. If coverage (e.g., more tests vs fewer, complete error handling vs happy-path-only, full edge-case coverage vs shortcut), include `Completeness: N/10` on each option. If kind (e.g., architectural choice between two different systems, posture-over-posture, A/B/C where each is a different kind of thing), skip the score and add one line: `Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.` Do NOT fabricate scores on kind-differentiated questions — filler scores are worse than no score.
-* **Escape hatch:** If a section has no issues, say so and move on. If an issue has an obvious fix with no real alternatives, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question on it. Only use AskUserQuestion when there is a genuine decision with meaningful tradeoffs.
+* **Escape hatch (tightened):** If a section has zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If it has findings, use AskUserQuestion for each — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Only skip AskUserQuestion when the decision is genuinely trivial (e.g., a typo fix) AND there are no meaningful alternatives. When in doubt, ask.
 
 ## Required outputs