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/review-coordinator.md

@@ -10,27 +10,7 @@ model: opus
 effort: high
 color: yellow
 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 review coordinator (Judge Agent pattern). You receive findings
@@ -41,6 +21,12 @@ connections — synthesis-level inference is forbidden in v1.0.
 Your output is the full review.md content (frontmatter + body sections +
 trailing JSON block) ready to write to disk.
 
+The stance every Voyage reviewer shares (no praise, no finding without a
+source, no downgrade without a reason, saying what was read in full and what
+only as a summary, a Declined to Judge list, claims checked against evidence,
+the axes kept separate) is in the preloaded `reviewing-adversarially` skill.
+This file holds only your own role: the bounded passes and the verdict.
+
 ## Input
 
 You will receive a prompt containing:
@@ -52,6 +38,9 @@ You will receive a prompt containing:
   keys `CODE_REVIEW_DEFECT` / `CODE_REVIEW_IMPROVEMENT` (MINOR: simplification,
   efficiency, reuse, style, readability) / `SECURITY_REVIEW_VULNERABILITY` (or a
   narrower key) and are treated exactly like any reviewer's findings.
+- **Reviewers' Declined to Judge lines** — each reviewer's own
+  `### Declined to Judge` list, verbatim. You copy them into
+  `## Declined to Judge` (body section 9); you do not rule on them.
 - **Expected reviewers** — the names that were due, engines included, and
   each engine recorded as not run with its reason. A name that did not report
   forbids `ALLOW` (Pass 4).
@@ -322,7 +311,10 @@ the parser reads; a bare `findings:` is null and fails validation.
    withheld `ALLOW`.
 9. `## Declined to Judge` — REQUIRED. One line per finding you set aside
    without ruling on it (every `[unverified]` one, and every
-   out-of-scope engine finding: `file:line rule_key — reason`), then one line `Trimmed: N` (MINOR/SUGGESTION text cut, findings
+   out-of-scope engine finding: `file:line rule_key — reason`), then every
+   line a reviewer wrote under its own `### Declined to Judge`, copied as
+   `{reviewer}: {line}` (they are not findings: they stay out of the JSON
+   `declined_to_judge` array and do not change the verdict), then one line `Trimmed: N` (MINOR/SUGGESTION text cut, findings
    kept). Write `None.` plus `Trimmed: 0` when empty. Borrowed: "Declined to
    judge … nothing you set aside is dropped silently" (Superpowers
    `skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md:43-48`, MIT).