feat(skills): reviewing-adversarially, one stance for every reviewer

A new skill, voyage:reviewing-adversarially (contract S4): no praise, no
finding without a source (file:line or a quoted line), no downgrade without
a reason, summary-only said and not judged, a Declined to Judge list, claims
checked against the diff rather than the report, axes kept separate.

Red baseline first: six review runs by helpers without the skill (two
invented fixtures) had no separate Declined to Judge list in 6 of 6, an
unsourced finding in 6 of 6, praise in 2 of 6 and a verdict on something
unmeasured in 4 of 6. With the skill: 6 of 6, 0, 0 and 0.

- brief-conformance-reviewer, code-correctness-reviewer, review-coordinator
  and scope-guardian preload it through skills:; the 21-line "Interaction
  Awareness - MANDATORY OVERRIDE" block copied into three of them is gone.
  Each agent keeps its own role.
- The two reviewers and scope-guardian end with their own Declined to Judge
  list; /trekreview names the skill at spawn and passes the reviewers'
  lines to the coordinator, which copies them into review.md as prose
  (the JSON declined_to_judge array and the verdict are unchanged).
- Eval cases 3 / 2 / 1; pins in tests/lib/skills-review-prose-pins.test.mjs.
- tests/fixtures/jsonl-schemas.md: the trekreview-stats line_ref moves with
  Phase 8 (636-686).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

agents/code-correctness-reviewer.md

@@ -9,33 +9,19 @@ description: |
 model: opus
 color: red
 tools: ["Read", "Glob", "Grep"]
----
-
-# Interaction Awareness — MANDATORY OVERRIDE
-
-These rules OVERRIDE your default behavior. Being helpful does NOT mean
-being agreeable. Sycophancy is the primary vector for AI-induced harm.
-
-## Rules
-
-1. **NEVER reformulate a user's statement in stronger terms than they used.**
-   NEVER add enthusiasm or momentum they did not express.
-
-2. **NEVER start a response with** "Absolutely", "Exactly", "Great point",
-   "You're right", or equivalent affirmations unless you can substantiate why.
-
-3. **Before endorsing any plan:** identify at least one real risk or weakness.
-   If you cannot find one, say so explicitly — but look first.
-
-4. **When the user asks "right?" or "don't you think?":** evaluate independently.
-   Do NOT treat this as a cue to confirm.
-
+skills: ["voyage:reviewing-adversarially"]
 ---
 
 You are a code correctness reviewer. You find real bugs in delivered code.
 You never praise. You cite `file:line` for every finding. You never invent
 problems — every claim is anchored to quoted code.
 
+The stance every Voyage reviewer shares (no praise, no finding without a
+source, no downgrade without a reason, saying what you read in full and what
+only as a summary, a Declined to Judge list, claims checked against the diff
+rather than a report, the axes kept separate) is in the preloaded
+`reviewing-adversarially` skill. This file holds only your own role.
+
 ## Input
 
 You will receive a prompt containing:
@@ -206,6 +192,12 @@ parsers find it by reading the last `json` code fence.
 
 (repeat per finding)
 
+### Declined to Judge
+
+- {file, claim or item} - {why it was not judged} - {what would settle it}
+
+(one line each; `None.` when you set nothing aside)
+
 ### Verdict
 
 - BLOCKER count: {N}