diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md
index c843d908..eb1b7084 100644
--- a/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md
+++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md
@@ -218,6 +218,25 @@ success/error/abort, and `USED_BROWSE` with true/false based on whether `$B` was
 If you cannot determine the outcome, use "unknown". This runs in the background and
 never blocks the user.
 
+## SETUP (run this check BEFORE any browse command)
+
+```bash
+_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)
+B=""
+[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -x "$_ROOT/.agents/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse" ] && B="$_ROOT/.agents/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse"
+[ -z "$B" ] && B=~/.codex/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse
+if [ -x "$B" ]; then
+  echo "READY: $B"
+else
+  echo "NEEDS_SETUP"
+fi
+```
+
+If `NEEDS_SETUP`:
+1. Tell the user: "gstack browse needs a one-time build (~10 seconds). OK to proceed?" Then STOP and wait.
+2. Run: `cd <SKILL_DIR> && ./setup`
+3. If `bun` is not installed: `curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash`
+
 # YC Office Hours
 
 You are a **YC office hours partner**. Your job is to ensure the problem is understood before solutions are proposed. You adapt to what the user is building — startup founders get the hard questions, builders get an enthusiastic collaborator. This skill produces design docs, not code.
@@ -482,6 +501,66 @@ Present via AskUserQuestion. Do NOT proceed without user approval of the approac
 
 ---
 
+## Visual Sketch (UI ideas only)
+
+If the chosen approach involves user-facing UI (screens, pages, forms, dashboards,
+or interactive elements), generate a rough wireframe to help the user visualize it.
+If the idea is backend-only, infrastructure, or has no UI component — skip this
+section silently.
+
+**Step 1: Gather design context**
+
+1. Check if `DESIGN.md` exists in the repo root. If it does, read it for design
+   system constraints (colors, typography, spacing, component patterns). Use these
+   constraints in the wireframe.
+2. Apply core design principles:
+   - **Information hierarchy** — what does the user see first, second, third?
+   - **Interaction states** — loading, empty, error, success, partial
+   - **Edge case paranoia** — what if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails?
+   - **Subtraction default** — "as little design as possible" (Rams). Every element earns its pixels.
+   - **Design for trust** — every interface element builds or erodes user trust.
+
+**Step 2: Generate wireframe HTML**
+
+Generate a single-page HTML file with these constraints:
+- **Intentionally rough aesthetic** — use system fonts, thin gray borders, no color,
+  hand-drawn-style elements. This is a sketch, not a polished mockup.
+- Self-contained — no external dependencies, no CDN links, inline CSS only
+- Show the core interaction flow (1-3 screens/states max)
+- Include realistic placeholder content (not "Lorem ipsum" — use content that
+  matches the actual use case)
+- Add HTML comments explaining design decisions
+
+Write to a temp file:
+```bash
+SKETCH_FILE="/tmp/gstack-sketch-$(date +%s).html"
+```
+
+**Step 3: Render and capture**
+
+```bash
+$B goto "file://$SKETCH_FILE"
+$B screenshot /tmp/gstack-sketch.png
+```
+
+If `$B` is not available (browse binary not set up), skip the render step. Tell the
+user: "Visual sketch requires the browse binary. Run the setup script to enable it."
+
+**Step 4: Present and iterate**
+
+Show the screenshot to the user. Ask: "Does this feel right? Want to iterate on the layout?"
+
+If they want changes, regenerate the HTML with their feedback and re-render.
+If they approve or say "good enough," proceed.
+
+**Step 5: Include in design doc**
+
+Reference the wireframe screenshot in the design doc's "Recommended Approach" section.
+The screenshot file at `/tmp/gstack-sketch.png` can be referenced by downstream skills
+(`/plan-design-review`, `/design-review`) to see what was originally envisioned.
+
+---
+
 ## Phase 4.5: Founder Signal Synthesis
 
 Before writing the design doc, synthesize the founder signals you observed during the session. These will appear in the design doc ("What I noticed") and in the closing conversation (Phase 6).
@@ -618,7 +697,73 @@ Supersedes: {prior filename — omit this line if first design on this branch}
 {observational, mentor-like reflections referencing specific things the user said during the session. Quote their words back to them — don't characterize their behavior. 2-4 bullets.}
 ```
 
-Present the design doc to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+---
+
+## Spec Review Loop
+
+Before presenting the document to the user for approval, run an adversarial review.
+
+**Step 1: Dispatch reviewer subagent**
+
+Use the Agent tool to dispatch an independent reviewer. The reviewer has fresh context
+and cannot see the brainstorming conversation — only the document. This ensures genuine
+adversarial independence.
+
+Prompt the subagent with:
+- The file path of the document just written
+- "Read this document and review it on 5 dimensions. For each dimension, note PASS or
+  list specific issues with suggested fixes. At the end, output a quality score (1-10)
+  across all dimensions."
+
+**Dimensions:**
+1. **Completeness** — Are all requirements addressed? Missing edge cases?
+2. **Consistency** — Do parts of the document agree with each other? Contradictions?
+3. **Clarity** — Could an engineer implement this without asking questions? Ambiguous language?
+4. **Scope** — Does the document creep beyond the original problem? YAGNI violations?
+5. **Feasibility** — Can this actually be built with the stated approach? Hidden complexity?
+
+The subagent should return:
+- A quality score (1-10)
+- PASS if no issues, or a numbered list of issues with dimension, description, and fix
+
+**Step 2: Fix and re-dispatch**
+
+If the reviewer returns issues:
+1. Fix each issue in the document on disk (use Edit tool)
+2. Re-dispatch the reviewer subagent with the updated document
+3. Maximum 3 iterations total
+
+**Convergence guard:** If the reviewer returns the same issues on consecutive iterations
+(the fix didn't resolve them or the reviewer disagrees with the fix), stop the loop
+and persist those issues as "Reviewer Concerns" in the document rather than looping
+further.
+
+If the subagent fails, times out, or is unavailable — skip the review loop entirely.
+Tell the user: "Spec review unavailable — presenting unreviewed doc." The document is
+already written to disk; the review is a quality bonus, not a gate.
+
+**Step 3: Report and persist metrics**
+
+After the loop completes (PASS, max iterations, or convergence guard):
+
+1. Tell the user the result — summary by default:
+   "Your doc survived N rounds of adversarial review. M issues caught and fixed.
+   Quality score: X/10."
+   If they ask "what did the reviewer find?", show the full reviewer output.
+
+2. If issues remain after max iterations or convergence, add a "## Reviewer Concerns"
+   section to the document listing each unresolved issue. Downstream skills will see this.
+
+3. Append metrics:
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
+echo '{"skill":"office-hours","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","iterations":ITERATIONS,"issues_found":FOUND,"issues_fixed":FIXED,"remaining":REMAINING,"quality_score":SCORE}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
+```
+Replace ITERATIONS, FOUND, FIXED, REMAINING, SCORE with actual values from the review.
+
+---
+
+Present the reviewed design doc to the user via AskUserQuestion:
 - A) Approve — mark Status: APPROVED and proceed to handoff
 - B) Revise — specify which sections need changes (loop back to revise those sections)
 - C) Start over — return to Phase 2
diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
index dfb1c937..6d078f3a 100644
--- a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
+++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
@@ -324,6 +324,37 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design.
 
+## Prerequisite Skill Offer
+
+When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite
+skill before proceeding.
+
+Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+
+> "No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem
+> statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much
+> sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature,
+> not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."
+
+Options:
+- A) Run /office-hours first (in another window, then come back)
+- B) Skip — proceed with standard review
+
+If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
+/office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.
+
+**Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't
+articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not
+sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`:
+
+> "It sounds like you're still figuring out what to build — that's totally fine, but
+> that's what /office-hours is designed for. Want to pause this review and run
+> /office-hours first? It'll help you nail down the problem and approach, then come
+> back here for the strategic review."
+
+Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going.
+If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking.
+
 When reading TODOS.md, specifically:
 * Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks
 * Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan
@@ -467,6 +498,70 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}
 
 Derive the feature slug from the plan being reviewed (e.g., "user-dashboard", "auth-refactor"). Use the date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
 
+After writing the CEO plan, run the spec review loop on it:
+
+## Spec Review Loop
+
+Before presenting the document to the user for approval, run an adversarial review.
+
+**Step 1: Dispatch reviewer subagent**
+
+Use the Agent tool to dispatch an independent reviewer. The reviewer has fresh context
+and cannot see the brainstorming conversation — only the document. This ensures genuine
+adversarial independence.
+
+Prompt the subagent with:
+- The file path of the document just written
+- "Read this document and review it on 5 dimensions. For each dimension, note PASS or
+  list specific issues with suggested fixes. At the end, output a quality score (1-10)
+  across all dimensions."
+
+**Dimensions:**
+1. **Completeness** — Are all requirements addressed? Missing edge cases?
+2. **Consistency** — Do parts of the document agree with each other? Contradictions?
+3. **Clarity** — Could an engineer implement this without asking questions? Ambiguous language?
+4. **Scope** — Does the document creep beyond the original problem? YAGNI violations?
+5. **Feasibility** — Can this actually be built with the stated approach? Hidden complexity?
+
+The subagent should return:
+- A quality score (1-10)
+- PASS if no issues, or a numbered list of issues with dimension, description, and fix
+
+**Step 2: Fix and re-dispatch**
+
+If the reviewer returns issues:
+1. Fix each issue in the document on disk (use Edit tool)
+2. Re-dispatch the reviewer subagent with the updated document
+3. Maximum 3 iterations total
+
+**Convergence guard:** If the reviewer returns the same issues on consecutive iterations
+(the fix didn't resolve them or the reviewer disagrees with the fix), stop the loop
+and persist those issues as "Reviewer Concerns" in the document rather than looping
+further.
+
+If the subagent fails, times out, or is unavailable — skip the review loop entirely.
+Tell the user: "Spec review unavailable — presenting unreviewed doc." The document is
+already written to disk; the review is a quality bonus, not a gate.
+
+**Step 3: Report and persist metrics**
+
+After the loop completes (PASS, max iterations, or convergence guard):
+
+1. Tell the user the result — summary by default:
+   "Your doc survived N rounds of adversarial review. M issues caught and fixed.
+   Quality score: X/10."
+   If they ask "what did the reviewer find?", show the full reviewer output.
+
+2. If issues remain after max iterations or convergence, add a "## Reviewer Concerns"
+   section to the document listing each unresolved issue. Downstream skills will see this.
+
+3. Append metrics:
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
+echo '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","iterations":ITERATIONS,"issues_found":FOUND,"issues_fixed":FIXED,"remaining":REMAINING,"quality_score":SCORE}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
+```
+Replace ITERATIONS, FOUND, FIXED, REMAINING, SCORE with actual values from the review.
+
 ### 0E. Temporal Interrogation (EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, and HOLD modes)
 Think ahead to implementation: What decisions will need to be made during implementation that should be resolved NOW in the plan?
 ```
diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
index 492bf9f8..d4cff7cd 100644
--- a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
+++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
@@ -269,6 +269,25 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If a design doc exists, read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design — check the prior version for context on what changed and why.
 
+## Prerequisite Skill Offer
+
+When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite
+skill before proceeding.
+
+Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+
+> "No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem
+> statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much
+> sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature,
+> not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."
+
+Options:
+- A) Run /office-hours first (in another window, then come back)
+- B) Skip — proceed with standard review
+
+If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
+/office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.
+
 ### Step 0: Scope Challenge
 Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
 1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md
index 74572e22..e0259c60 100644
--- a/CHANGELOG.md
+++ b/CHANGELOG.md
@@ -1,5 +1,14 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## [0.9.1.0] - 2026-03-20 — Adversarial Spec Review + Skill Chaining
+
+### Added
+
+- **Your design docs now get stress-tested before you see them.** When you run `/office-hours`, an independent AI reviewer checks your design doc for completeness, consistency, clarity, scope creep, and feasibility — up to 3 rounds. You get a quality score (1-10) and a summary of what was caught and fixed. The doc you approve has already survived adversarial review.
+- **Visual wireframes during brainstorming.** For UI ideas, `/office-hours` now generates a rough HTML wireframe using your project's design system (from DESIGN.md) and screenshots it. You see what you're designing while you're still thinking, not after you've coded it.
+- **Skills help each other now.** `/plan-ceo-review` and `/plan-eng-review` detect when you'd benefit from running `/office-hours` first and offer it — one-tap to switch, one-tap to decline. If you seem lost during a CEO review, it'll gently suggest brainstorming first.
+- **Spec review metrics.** Every adversarial review logs iterations, issues found/fixed, and quality score to `~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl`. Over time, you can see if your design docs are getting better.
+
 ## [0.9.0.1] - 2026-03-19
 
 ### Changed
diff --git a/VERSION b/VERSION
index 15e36e66..cf94a424 100644
--- a/VERSION
+++ b/VERSION
@@ -1 +1 @@
-0.9.0.1
+0.9.1.0
diff --git a/office-hours/SKILL.md b/office-hours/SKILL.md
index ff0aeafa..2a2e7583 100644
--- a/office-hours/SKILL.md
+++ b/office-hours/SKILL.md
@@ -227,6 +227,25 @@ success/error/abort, and `USED_BROWSE` with true/false based on whether `$B` was
 If you cannot determine the outcome, use "unknown". This runs in the background and
 never blocks the user.
 
+## SETUP (run this check BEFORE any browse command)
+
+```bash
+_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)
+B=""
+[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -x "$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse" ] && B="$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse"
+[ -z "$B" ] && B=~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse
+if [ -x "$B" ]; then
+  echo "READY: $B"
+else
+  echo "NEEDS_SETUP"
+fi
+```
+
+If `NEEDS_SETUP`:
+1. Tell the user: "gstack browse needs a one-time build (~10 seconds). OK to proceed?" Then STOP and wait.
+2. Run: `cd <SKILL_DIR> && ./setup`
+3. If `bun` is not installed: `curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash`
+
 # YC Office Hours
 
 You are a **YC office hours partner**. Your job is to ensure the problem is understood before solutions are proposed. You adapt to what the user is building — startup founders get the hard questions, builders get an enthusiastic collaborator. This skill produces design docs, not code.
@@ -491,6 +510,66 @@ Present via AskUserQuestion. Do NOT proceed without user approval of the approac
 
 ---
 
+## Visual Sketch (UI ideas only)
+
+If the chosen approach involves user-facing UI (screens, pages, forms, dashboards,
+or interactive elements), generate a rough wireframe to help the user visualize it.
+If the idea is backend-only, infrastructure, or has no UI component — skip this
+section silently.
+
+**Step 1: Gather design context**
+
+1. Check if `DESIGN.md` exists in the repo root. If it does, read it for design
+   system constraints (colors, typography, spacing, component patterns). Use these
+   constraints in the wireframe.
+2. Apply core design principles:
+   - **Information hierarchy** — what does the user see first, second, third?
+   - **Interaction states** — loading, empty, error, success, partial
+   - **Edge case paranoia** — what if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails?
+   - **Subtraction default** — "as little design as possible" (Rams). Every element earns its pixels.
+   - **Design for trust** — every interface element builds or erodes user trust.
+
+**Step 2: Generate wireframe HTML**
+
+Generate a single-page HTML file with these constraints:
+- **Intentionally rough aesthetic** — use system fonts, thin gray borders, no color,
+  hand-drawn-style elements. This is a sketch, not a polished mockup.
+- Self-contained — no external dependencies, no CDN links, inline CSS only
+- Show the core interaction flow (1-3 screens/states max)
+- Include realistic placeholder content (not "Lorem ipsum" — use content that
+  matches the actual use case)
+- Add HTML comments explaining design decisions
+
+Write to a temp file:
+```bash
+SKETCH_FILE="/tmp/gstack-sketch-$(date +%s).html"
+```
+
+**Step 3: Render and capture**
+
+```bash
+$B goto "file://$SKETCH_FILE"
+$B screenshot /tmp/gstack-sketch.png
+```
+
+If `$B` is not available (browse binary not set up), skip the render step. Tell the
+user: "Visual sketch requires the browse binary. Run the setup script to enable it."
+
+**Step 4: Present and iterate**
+
+Show the screenshot to the user. Ask: "Does this feel right? Want to iterate on the layout?"
+
+If they want changes, regenerate the HTML with their feedback and re-render.
+If they approve or say "good enough," proceed.
+
+**Step 5: Include in design doc**
+
+Reference the wireframe screenshot in the design doc's "Recommended Approach" section.
+The screenshot file at `/tmp/gstack-sketch.png` can be referenced by downstream skills
+(`/plan-design-review`, `/design-review`) to see what was originally envisioned.
+
+---
+
 ## Phase 4.5: Founder Signal Synthesis
 
 Before writing the design doc, synthesize the founder signals you observed during the session. These will appear in the design doc ("What I noticed") and in the closing conversation (Phase 6).
@@ -627,7 +706,73 @@ Supersedes: {prior filename — omit this line if first design on this branch}
 {observational, mentor-like reflections referencing specific things the user said during the session. Quote their words back to them — don't characterize their behavior. 2-4 bullets.}
 ```
 
-Present the design doc to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+---
+
+## Spec Review Loop
+
+Before presenting the document to the user for approval, run an adversarial review.
+
+**Step 1: Dispatch reviewer subagent**
+
+Use the Agent tool to dispatch an independent reviewer. The reviewer has fresh context
+and cannot see the brainstorming conversation — only the document. This ensures genuine
+adversarial independence.
+
+Prompt the subagent with:
+- The file path of the document just written
+- "Read this document and review it on 5 dimensions. For each dimension, note PASS or
+  list specific issues with suggested fixes. At the end, output a quality score (1-10)
+  across all dimensions."
+
+**Dimensions:**
+1. **Completeness** — Are all requirements addressed? Missing edge cases?
+2. **Consistency** — Do parts of the document agree with each other? Contradictions?
+3. **Clarity** — Could an engineer implement this without asking questions? Ambiguous language?
+4. **Scope** — Does the document creep beyond the original problem? YAGNI violations?
+5. **Feasibility** — Can this actually be built with the stated approach? Hidden complexity?
+
+The subagent should return:
+- A quality score (1-10)
+- PASS if no issues, or a numbered list of issues with dimension, description, and fix
+
+**Step 2: Fix and re-dispatch**
+
+If the reviewer returns issues:
+1. Fix each issue in the document on disk (use Edit tool)
+2. Re-dispatch the reviewer subagent with the updated document
+3. Maximum 3 iterations total
+
+**Convergence guard:** If the reviewer returns the same issues on consecutive iterations
+(the fix didn't resolve them or the reviewer disagrees with the fix), stop the loop
+and persist those issues as "Reviewer Concerns" in the document rather than looping
+further.
+
+If the subagent fails, times out, or is unavailable — skip the review loop entirely.
+Tell the user: "Spec review unavailable — presenting unreviewed doc." The document is
+already written to disk; the review is a quality bonus, not a gate.
+
+**Step 3: Report and persist metrics**
+
+After the loop completes (PASS, max iterations, or convergence guard):
+
+1. Tell the user the result — summary by default:
+   "Your doc survived N rounds of adversarial review. M issues caught and fixed.
+   Quality score: X/10."
+   If they ask "what did the reviewer find?", show the full reviewer output.
+
+2. If issues remain after max iterations or convergence, add a "## Reviewer Concerns"
+   section to the document listing each unresolved issue. Downstream skills will see this.
+
+3. Append metrics:
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
+echo '{"skill":"office-hours","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","iterations":ITERATIONS,"issues_found":FOUND,"issues_fixed":FIXED,"remaining":REMAINING,"quality_score":SCORE}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
+```
+Replace ITERATIONS, FOUND, FIXED, REMAINING, SCORE with actual values from the review.
+
+---
+
+Present the reviewed design doc to the user via AskUserQuestion:
 - A) Approve — mark Status: APPROVED and proceed to handoff
 - B) Revise — specify which sections need changes (loop back to revise those sections)
 - C) Start over — return to Phase 2
diff --git a/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl b/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl
index caf91acb..e0ff98a7 100644
--- a/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl
+++ b/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl
@@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ allowed-tools:
 
 {{PREAMBLE}}
 
+{{BROWSE_SETUP}}
+
 # YC Office Hours
 
 You are a **YC office hours partner**. Your job is to ensure the problem is understood before solutions are proposed. You adapt to what the user is building — startup founders get the hard questions, builders get an enthusiastic collaborator. This skill produces design docs, not code.
@@ -287,6 +289,10 @@ Present via AskUserQuestion. Do NOT proceed without user approval of the approac
 
 ---
 
+{{DESIGN_SKETCH}}
+
+---
+
 ## Phase 4.5: Founder Signal Synthesis
 
 Before writing the design doc, synthesize the founder signals you observed during the session. These will appear in the design doc ("What I noticed") and in the closing conversation (Phase 6).
@@ -423,7 +429,13 @@ Supersedes: {prior filename — omit this line if first design on this branch}
 {observational, mentor-like reflections referencing specific things the user said during the session. Quote their words back to them — don't characterize their behavior. 2-4 bullets.}
 ```
 
-Present the design doc to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+---
+
+{{SPEC_REVIEW_LOOP}}
+
+---
+
+Present the reviewed design doc to the user via AskUserQuestion:
 - A) Approve — mark Status: APPROVED and proceed to handoff
 - B) Revise — specify which sections need changes (loop back to revise those sections)
 - C) Start over — return to Phase 2
diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
index 68b234d6..44fc4013 100644
--- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
+++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ description: |
   or "is this ambitious enough".
   Proactively suggest when the user is questioning scope or ambition of a plan,
   or when the plan feels like it could be thinking bigger.
+benefits-from: [office-hours]
 allowed-tools:
   - Read
   - Grep
@@ -331,6 +332,37 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design.
 
+## Prerequisite Skill Offer
+
+When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite
+skill before proceeding.
+
+Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+
+> "No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem
+> statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much
+> sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature,
+> not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."
+
+Options:
+- A) Run /office-hours first (in another window, then come back)
+- B) Skip — proceed with standard review
+
+If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
+/office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.
+
+**Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't
+articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not
+sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`:
+
+> "It sounds like you're still figuring out what to build — that's totally fine, but
+> that's what /office-hours is designed for. Want to pause this review and run
+> /office-hours first? It'll help you nail down the problem and approach, then come
+> back here for the strategic review."
+
+Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going.
+If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking.
+
 When reading TODOS.md, specifically:
 * Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks
 * Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan
@@ -474,6 +506,70 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}
 
 Derive the feature slug from the plan being reviewed (e.g., "user-dashboard", "auth-refactor"). Use the date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
 
+After writing the CEO plan, run the spec review loop on it:
+
+## Spec Review Loop
+
+Before presenting the document to the user for approval, run an adversarial review.
+
+**Step 1: Dispatch reviewer subagent**
+
+Use the Agent tool to dispatch an independent reviewer. The reviewer has fresh context
+and cannot see the brainstorming conversation — only the document. This ensures genuine
+adversarial independence.
+
+Prompt the subagent with:
+- The file path of the document just written
+- "Read this document and review it on 5 dimensions. For each dimension, note PASS or
+  list specific issues with suggested fixes. At the end, output a quality score (1-10)
+  across all dimensions."
+
+**Dimensions:**
+1. **Completeness** — Are all requirements addressed? Missing edge cases?
+2. **Consistency** — Do parts of the document agree with each other? Contradictions?
+3. **Clarity** — Could an engineer implement this without asking questions? Ambiguous language?
+4. **Scope** — Does the document creep beyond the original problem? YAGNI violations?
+5. **Feasibility** — Can this actually be built with the stated approach? Hidden complexity?
+
+The subagent should return:
+- A quality score (1-10)
+- PASS if no issues, or a numbered list of issues with dimension, description, and fix
+
+**Step 2: Fix and re-dispatch**
+
+If the reviewer returns issues:
+1. Fix each issue in the document on disk (use Edit tool)
+2. Re-dispatch the reviewer subagent with the updated document
+3. Maximum 3 iterations total
+
+**Convergence guard:** If the reviewer returns the same issues on consecutive iterations
+(the fix didn't resolve them or the reviewer disagrees with the fix), stop the loop
+and persist those issues as "Reviewer Concerns" in the document rather than looping
+further.
+
+If the subagent fails, times out, or is unavailable — skip the review loop entirely.
+Tell the user: "Spec review unavailable — presenting unreviewed doc." The document is
+already written to disk; the review is a quality bonus, not a gate.
+
+**Step 3: Report and persist metrics**
+
+After the loop completes (PASS, max iterations, or convergence guard):
+
+1. Tell the user the result — summary by default:
+   "Your doc survived N rounds of adversarial review. M issues caught and fixed.
+   Quality score: X/10."
+   If they ask "what did the reviewer find?", show the full reviewer output.
+
+2. If issues remain after max iterations or convergence, add a "## Reviewer Concerns"
+   section to the document listing each unresolved issue. Downstream skills will see this.
+
+3. Append metrics:
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
+echo '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","iterations":ITERATIONS,"issues_found":FOUND,"issues_fixed":FIXED,"remaining":REMAINING,"quality_score":SCORE}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
+```
+Replace ITERATIONS, FOUND, FIXED, REMAINING, SCORE with actual values from the review.
+
 ### 0E. Temporal Interrogation (EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, and HOLD modes)
 Think ahead to implementation: What decisions will need to be made during implementation that should be resolved NOW in the plan?
 ```
diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
index 87dec8e7..8dce40eb 100644
--- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
+++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ description: |
   or "is this ambitious enough".
   Proactively suggest when the user is questioning scope or ambition of a plan,
   or when the plan feels like it could be thinking bigger.
+benefits-from: [office-hours]
 allowed-tools:
   - Read
   - Grep
@@ -110,6 +111,20 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design.
 
+{{BENEFITS_FROM}}
+
+**Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't
+articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not
+sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`:
+
+> "It sounds like you're still figuring out what to build — that's totally fine, but
+> that's what /office-hours is designed for. Want to pause this review and run
+> /office-hours first? It'll help you nail down the problem and approach, then come
+> back here for the strategic review."
+
+Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going.
+If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking.
+
 When reading TODOS.md, specifically:
 * Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks
 * Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan
@@ -253,6 +268,10 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}
 
 Derive the feature slug from the plan being reviewed (e.g., "user-dashboard", "auth-refactor"). Use the date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
 
+After writing the CEO plan, run the spec review loop on it:
+
+{{SPEC_REVIEW_LOOP}}
+
 ### 0E. Temporal Interrogation (EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, and HOLD modes)
 Think ahead to implementation: What decisions will need to be made during implementation that should be resolved NOW in the plan?
 ```
diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
index 45ac15d0..078a2875 100644
--- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
+++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ description: |
   "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan".
   Proactively suggest when the user has a plan or design doc and is about to
   start coding — to catch architecture issues before implementation.
+benefits-from: [office-hours]
 allowed-tools:
   - Read
   - Write
@@ -277,6 +278,25 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If a design doc exists, read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design — check the prior version for context on what changed and why.
 
+## Prerequisite Skill Offer
+
+When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite
+skill before proceeding.
+
+Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+
+> "No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem
+> statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much
+> sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature,
+> not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."
+
+Options:
+- A) Run /office-hours first (in another window, then come back)
+- B) Skip — proceed with standard review
+
+If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
+/office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.
+
 ### Step 0: Scope Challenge
 Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
 1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
index ef21a200..09782a9d 100644
--- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
+++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ description: |
   "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan".
   Proactively suggest when the user has a plan or design doc and is about to
   start coding — to catch architecture issues before implementation.
+benefits-from: [office-hours]
 allowed-tools:
   - Read
   - Write
@@ -73,6 +74,8 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
 ```
 If a design doc exists, read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design — check the prior version for context on what changed and why.
 
+{{BENEFITS_FROM}}
+
 ### Step 0: Scope Challenge
 Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
 1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
diff --git a/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts b/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts
index 8ac36a46..53e8834f 100644
--- a/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts
+++ b/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ const HOST_PATHS: Record<Host, HostPaths> = {
 interface TemplateContext {
   skillName: string;
   tmplPath: string;
+  benefitsFrom?: string[];
   host: Host;
   paths: HostPaths;
 }
@@ -1261,6 +1262,156 @@ Only commit if there are changes. Stage all bootstrap files (config, test direct
 ---`;
 }
 
+function generateSpecReviewLoop(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return `## Spec Review Loop
+
+Before presenting the document to the user for approval, run an adversarial review.
+
+**Step 1: Dispatch reviewer subagent**
+
+Use the Agent tool to dispatch an independent reviewer. The reviewer has fresh context
+and cannot see the brainstorming conversation — only the document. This ensures genuine
+adversarial independence.
+
+Prompt the subagent with:
+- The file path of the document just written
+- "Read this document and review it on 5 dimensions. For each dimension, note PASS or
+  list specific issues with suggested fixes. At the end, output a quality score (1-10)
+  across all dimensions."
+
+**Dimensions:**
+1. **Completeness** — Are all requirements addressed? Missing edge cases?
+2. **Consistency** — Do parts of the document agree with each other? Contradictions?
+3. **Clarity** — Could an engineer implement this without asking questions? Ambiguous language?
+4. **Scope** — Does the document creep beyond the original problem? YAGNI violations?
+5. **Feasibility** — Can this actually be built with the stated approach? Hidden complexity?
+
+The subagent should return:
+- A quality score (1-10)
+- PASS if no issues, or a numbered list of issues with dimension, description, and fix
+
+**Step 2: Fix and re-dispatch**
+
+If the reviewer returns issues:
+1. Fix each issue in the document on disk (use Edit tool)
+2. Re-dispatch the reviewer subagent with the updated document
+3. Maximum 3 iterations total
+
+**Convergence guard:** If the reviewer returns the same issues on consecutive iterations
+(the fix didn't resolve them or the reviewer disagrees with the fix), stop the loop
+and persist those issues as "Reviewer Concerns" in the document rather than looping
+further.
+
+If the subagent fails, times out, or is unavailable — skip the review loop entirely.
+Tell the user: "Spec review unavailable — presenting unreviewed doc." The document is
+already written to disk; the review is a quality bonus, not a gate.
+
+**Step 3: Report and persist metrics**
+
+After the loop completes (PASS, max iterations, or convergence guard):
+
+1. Tell the user the result — summary by default:
+   "Your doc survived N rounds of adversarial review. M issues caught and fixed.
+   Quality score: X/10."
+   If they ask "what did the reviewer find?", show the full reviewer output.
+
+2. If issues remain after max iterations or convergence, add a "## Reviewer Concerns"
+   section to the document listing each unresolved issue. Downstream skills will see this.
+
+3. Append metrics:
+\`\`\`bash
+mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
+echo '{"skill":"${_ctx.skillName}","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","iterations":ITERATIONS,"issues_found":FOUND,"issues_fixed":FIXED,"remaining":REMAINING,"quality_score":SCORE}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
+\`\`\`
+Replace ITERATIONS, FOUND, FIXED, REMAINING, SCORE with actual values from the review.`;
+}
+
+function generateBenefitsFrom(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  if (!ctx.benefitsFrom || ctx.benefitsFrom.length === 0) return '';
+
+  const skillList = ctx.benefitsFrom.map(s => `\`/${s}\``).join(' or ');
+  const first = ctx.benefitsFrom[0];
+
+  return `## Prerequisite Skill Offer
+
+When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite
+skill before proceeding.
+
+Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:
+
+> "No design doc found for this branch. ${skillList} produces a structured problem
+> statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much
+> sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature,
+> not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."
+
+Options:
+- A) Run /${first} first (in another window, then come back)
+- B) Skip — proceed with standard review
+
+If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
+/${first} first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.`;
+}
+
+function generateDesignSketch(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return `## Visual Sketch (UI ideas only)
+
+If the chosen approach involves user-facing UI (screens, pages, forms, dashboards,
+or interactive elements), generate a rough wireframe to help the user visualize it.
+If the idea is backend-only, infrastructure, or has no UI component — skip this
+section silently.
+
+**Step 1: Gather design context**
+
+1. Check if \`DESIGN.md\` exists in the repo root. If it does, read it for design
+   system constraints (colors, typography, spacing, component patterns). Use these
+   constraints in the wireframe.
+2. Apply core design principles:
+   - **Information hierarchy** — what does the user see first, second, third?
+   - **Interaction states** — loading, empty, error, success, partial
+   - **Edge case paranoia** — what if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails?
+   - **Subtraction default** — "as little design as possible" (Rams). Every element earns its pixels.
+   - **Design for trust** — every interface element builds or erodes user trust.
+
+**Step 2: Generate wireframe HTML**
+
+Generate a single-page HTML file with these constraints:
+- **Intentionally rough aesthetic** — use system fonts, thin gray borders, no color,
+  hand-drawn-style elements. This is a sketch, not a polished mockup.
+- Self-contained — no external dependencies, no CDN links, inline CSS only
+- Show the core interaction flow (1-3 screens/states max)
+- Include realistic placeholder content (not "Lorem ipsum" — use content that
+  matches the actual use case)
+- Add HTML comments explaining design decisions
+
+Write to a temp file:
+\`\`\`bash
+SKETCH_FILE="/tmp/gstack-sketch-$(date +%s).html"
+\`\`\`
+
+**Step 3: Render and capture**
+
+\`\`\`bash
+$B goto "file://$SKETCH_FILE"
+$B screenshot /tmp/gstack-sketch.png
+\`\`\`
+
+If \`$B\` is not available (browse binary not set up), skip the render step. Tell the
+user: "Visual sketch requires the browse binary. Run the setup script to enable it."
+
+**Step 4: Present and iterate**
+
+Show the screenshot to the user. Ask: "Does this feel right? Want to iterate on the layout?"
+
+If they want changes, regenerate the HTML with their feedback and re-render.
+If they approve or say "good enough," proceed.
+
+**Step 5: Include in design doc**
+
+Reference the wireframe screenshot in the design doc's "Recommended Approach" section.
+The screenshot file at \`/tmp/gstack-sketch.png\` can be referenced by downstream skills
+(\`/plan-design-review\`, \`/design-review\`) to see what was originally envisioned.`;
+}
+
 const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
   COMMAND_REFERENCE: generateCommandReference,
   SNAPSHOT_FLAGS: generateSnapshotFlags,
@@ -1272,6 +1423,9 @@ const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
   DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE: generateDesignReviewLite,
   REVIEW_DASHBOARD: generateReviewDashboard,
   TEST_BOOTSTRAP: generateTestBootstrap,
+  SPEC_REVIEW_LOOP: generateSpecReviewLoop,
+  DESIGN_SKETCH: generateDesignSketch,
+  BENEFITS_FROM: generateBenefitsFrom,
 };
 
 // ─── Codex Helpers ───────────────────────────────────────────
@@ -1394,7 +1548,14 @@ function processTemplate(tmplPath: string, host: Host = 'claude'): { outputPath:
   // Extract skill name from frontmatter for TemplateContext
   const nameMatch = tmplContent.match(/^name:\s*(.+)$/m);
   const skillName = nameMatch ? nameMatch[1].trim() : path.basename(path.dirname(tmplPath));
-  const ctx: TemplateContext = { skillName, tmplPath, host, paths: HOST_PATHS[host] };
+
+  // Extract benefits-from list from frontmatter (inline YAML: benefits-from: [a, b])
+  const benefitsMatch = tmplContent.match(/^benefits-from:\s*\[([^\]]*)\]/m);
+  const benefitsFrom = benefitsMatch
+    ? benefitsMatch[1].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean)
+    : undefined;
+
+  const ctx: TemplateContext = { skillName, tmplPath, benefitsFrom, host, paths: HOST_PATHS[host] };
 
   // Replace placeholders
   let content = tmplContent.replace(/\{\{(\w+)\}\}/g, (match, name) => {
diff --git a/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts b/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
index 49714f2a..68d84465 100644
--- a/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
+++ b/test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
@@ -416,6 +416,98 @@ describe('REVIEW_DASHBOARD resolver', () => {
   });
 });
 
+// --- {{SPEC_REVIEW_LOOP}} resolver tests ---
+
+describe('SPEC_REVIEW_LOOP resolver', () => {
+  const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'office-hours', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('contains all 5 review dimensions', () => {
+    for (const dim of ['Completeness', 'Consistency', 'Clarity', 'Scope', 'Feasibility']) {
+      expect(content).toContain(dim);
+    }
+  });
+
+  test('references Agent tool for subagent dispatch', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/Agent.*tool/i);
+  });
+
+  test('specifies max 3 iterations', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/3.*iteration|maximum.*3/i);
+  });
+
+  test('includes quality score', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('quality score');
+  });
+
+  test('includes metrics path', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('spec-review.jsonl');
+  });
+
+  test('includes convergence guard', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/[Cc]onvergence/);
+  });
+
+  test('includes graceful failure handling', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/skip.*review|unavailable/i);
+  });
+});
+
+// --- {{DESIGN_SKETCH}} resolver tests ---
+
+describe('DESIGN_SKETCH resolver', () => {
+  const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'office-hours', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('references DESIGN.md for design system constraints', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('DESIGN.md');
+  });
+
+  test('contains wireframe or sketch terminology', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/wireframe|sketch/i);
+  });
+
+  test('references browse binary for rendering', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('$B goto');
+  });
+
+  test('references screenshot capture', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('$B screenshot');
+  });
+
+  test('specifies rough aesthetic', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/[Rr]ough|hand-drawn/);
+  });
+
+  test('includes skip conditions', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/no UI component|skip/i);
+  });
+});
+
+// --- {{BENEFITS_FROM}} resolver tests ---
+
+describe('BENEFITS_FROM resolver', () => {
+  const ceoContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'plan-ceo-review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+  const engContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'plan-eng-review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('plan-ceo-review contains prerequisite skill offer', () => {
+    expect(ceoContent).toContain('Prerequisite Skill Offer');
+    expect(ceoContent).toContain('/office-hours');
+  });
+
+  test('plan-eng-review contains prerequisite skill offer', () => {
+    expect(engContent).toContain('Prerequisite Skill Offer');
+    expect(engContent).toContain('/office-hours');
+  });
+
+  test('offer includes graceful decline', () => {
+    expect(ceoContent).toContain('No worries');
+  });
+
+  test('skills without benefits-from do NOT have prerequisite offer', () => {
+    const qaContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'qa', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(qaContent).not.toContain('Prerequisite Skill Offer');
+  });
+});
+
 // ─── Codex Generation Tests ─────────────────────────────────
 
 describe('Codex generation (--host codex)', () => {
diff --git a/test/helpers/touchfiles.ts b/test/helpers/touchfiles.ts
index 53cc709c..c516a3b5 100644
--- a/test/helpers/touchfiles.ts
+++ b/test/helpers/touchfiles.ts
@@ -57,9 +57,13 @@ export const E2E_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
   'review-base-branch':       ['review/**'],
   'review-design-lite':       ['review/**', 'test/fixtures/review-eval-design-slop.*'],
 
+  // Office Hours
+  'office-hours-spec-review':  ['office-hours/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
+
   // Plan reviews
   'plan-ceo-review':           ['plan-ceo-review/**'],
   'plan-ceo-review-selective': ['plan-ceo-review/**'],
+  'plan-ceo-review-benefits':  ['plan-ceo-review/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
   'plan-eng-review':           ['plan-eng-review/**'],
   'plan-eng-review-artifact':  ['plan-eng-review/**'],
 
@@ -140,6 +144,10 @@ export const LLM_JUDGE_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
   'design-review/SKILL.md fix loop':      ['design-review/SKILL.md', 'design-review/SKILL.md.tmpl'],
   'design-consultation/SKILL.md research': ['design-consultation/SKILL.md', 'design-consultation/SKILL.md.tmpl'],
 
+  // Office Hours
+  'office-hours/SKILL.md spec review':    ['office-hours/SKILL.md', 'office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
+  'office-hours/SKILL.md design sketch':  ['office-hours/SKILL.md', 'office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
+
   // Other skills
   'retro/SKILL.md instructions':          ['retro/SKILL.md', 'retro/SKILL.md.tmpl'],
   'qa-only/SKILL.md workflow':            ['qa-only/SKILL.md', 'qa-only/SKILL.md.tmpl'],
diff --git a/test/skill-e2e.test.ts b/test/skill-e2e.test.ts
index 96019f70..0b6331f3 100644
--- a/test/skill-e2e.test.ts
+++ b/test/skill-e2e.test.ts
@@ -2911,6 +2911,128 @@ Write the full output (including the GATE verdict) to ${codexDir}/codex-output.m
   }, 360_000);
 });
 
+// --- Office Hours Spec Review E2E ---
+
+describeIfSelected('Office Hours Spec Review E2E', ['office-hours-spec-review'], () => {
+  let ohDir: string;
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    ohDir = fs.mkdtempSync(path.join(os.tmpdir(), 'skill-e2e-oh-spec-'));
+    const run = (cmd: string, args: string[]) =>
+      spawnSync(cmd, args, { cwd: ohDir, stdio: 'pipe', timeout: 5000 });
+
+    run('git', ['init', '-b', 'main']);
+    run('git', ['config', 'user.email', 'test@test.com']);
+    run('git', ['config', 'user.name', 'Test']);
+    fs.writeFileSync(path.join(ohDir, 'README.md'), '# Test Project\n');
+    run('git', ['add', '.']);
+    run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'init']);
+
+    // Copy office-hours skill
+    fs.mkdirSync(path.join(ohDir, 'office-hours'), { recursive: true });
+    fs.copyFileSync(
+      path.join(ROOT, 'office-hours', 'SKILL.md'),
+      path.join(ohDir, 'office-hours', 'SKILL.md'),
+    );
+  });
+
+  afterAll(() => {
+    try { fs.rmSync(ohDir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {}
+  });
+
+  test('/office-hours SKILL.md contains spec review loop', async () => {
+    const result = await runSkillTest({
+      prompt: `Read office-hours/SKILL.md. I want to understand the spec review loop.
+
+Summarize what the "Spec Review Loop" section does — specifically:
+1. How many dimensions does the reviewer check?
+2. What tool is used to dispatch the reviewer?
+3. What's the maximum number of iterations?
+4. What metrics are tracked?
+
+Write your summary to ${ohDir}/spec-review-summary.md`,
+      workingDirectory: ohDir,
+      maxTurns: 8,
+      timeout: 120_000,
+      testName: 'office-hours-spec-review',
+      runId,
+    });
+
+    logCost('/office-hours spec review', result);
+    recordE2E('/office-hours-spec-review', 'Office Hours Spec Review E2E', result);
+    expect(result.exitReason).toBe('success');
+
+    const summaryPath = path.join(ohDir, 'spec-review-summary.md');
+    if (fs.existsSync(summaryPath)) {
+      const summary = fs.readFileSync(summaryPath, 'utf-8').toLowerCase();
+      // Verify the agent understood the key concepts
+      expect(summary).toMatch(/5.*dimension|dimension.*5|completeness|consistency|clarity|scope|feasibility/);
+      expect(summary).toMatch(/agent|subagent/);
+      expect(summary).toMatch(/3.*iteration|iteration.*3|maximum.*3/);
+    }
+  }, 180_000);
+});
+
+// --- Plan CEO Review Benefits-From E2E ---
+
+describeIfSelected('Plan CEO Review Benefits-From E2E', ['plan-ceo-review-benefits'], () => {
+  let benefitsDir: string;
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    benefitsDir = fs.mkdtempSync(path.join(os.tmpdir(), 'skill-e2e-benefits-'));
+    const run = (cmd: string, args: string[]) =>
+      spawnSync(cmd, args, { cwd: benefitsDir, stdio: 'pipe', timeout: 5000 });
+
+    run('git', ['init', '-b', 'main']);
+    run('git', ['config', 'user.email', 'test@test.com']);
+    run('git', ['config', 'user.name', 'Test']);
+    fs.writeFileSync(path.join(benefitsDir, 'README.md'), '# Test Project\n');
+    run('git', ['add', '.']);
+    run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'init']);
+
+    // Copy plan-ceo-review skill
+    fs.mkdirSync(path.join(benefitsDir, 'plan-ceo-review'), { recursive: true });
+    fs.copyFileSync(
+      path.join(ROOT, 'plan-ceo-review', 'SKILL.md'),
+      path.join(benefitsDir, 'plan-ceo-review', 'SKILL.md'),
+    );
+  });
+
+  afterAll(() => {
+    try { fs.rmSync(benefitsDir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {}
+  });
+
+  test('/plan-ceo-review SKILL.md contains prerequisite skill offer', async () => {
+    const result = await runSkillTest({
+      prompt: `Read plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md. Search for sections about "Prerequisite" or "office-hours" or "design doc found".
+
+Summarize what happens when no design doc is found — specifically:
+1. Is /office-hours offered as a prerequisite?
+2. What options does the user get?
+3. Is there a mid-session detection for when the user seems lost?
+
+Write your summary to ${benefitsDir}/benefits-summary.md`,
+      workingDirectory: benefitsDir,
+      maxTurns: 8,
+      timeout: 120_000,
+      testName: 'plan-ceo-review-benefits',
+      runId,
+    });
+
+    logCost('/plan-ceo-review benefits-from', result);
+    recordE2E('/plan-ceo-review-benefits', 'Plan CEO Review Benefits-From E2E', result);
+    expect(result.exitReason).toBe('success');
+
+    const summaryPath = path.join(benefitsDir, 'benefits-summary.md');
+    if (fs.existsSync(summaryPath)) {
+      const summary = fs.readFileSync(summaryPath, 'utf-8').toLowerCase();
+      // Verify the agent understood the skill chaining
+      expect(summary).toMatch(/office.hours/);
+      expect(summary).toMatch(/design doc|no design/i);
+    }
+  }, 180_000);
+});
+
 // Module-level afterAll — finalize eval collector after all tests complete
 afterAll(async () => {
   if (evalCollector) {
diff --git a/test/skill-validation.test.ts b/test/skill-validation.test.ts
index ea683762..f4405a25 100644
--- a/test/skill-validation.test.ts
+++ b/test/skill-validation.test.ts
@@ -644,6 +644,59 @@ describe('office-hours skill structure', () => {
   test('contains builder operating principles', () => {
     expect(content).toContain('Delight is the currency');
   });
+
+  // Spec Review Loop (Phase 5.5)
+  test('contains spec review loop', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('Spec Review Loop');
+  });
+
+  test('contains adversarial review dimensions', () => {
+    for (const dim of ['Completeness', 'Consistency', 'Clarity', 'Scope', 'Feasibility']) {
+      expect(content).toContain(dim);
+    }
+  });
+
+  test('contains subagent dispatch instruction', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/Agent.*tool|subagent/i);
+  });
+
+  test('contains max 3 iterations', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/3.*iteration|maximum.*3/i);
+  });
+
+  test('contains quality score', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('quality score');
+  });
+
+  test('contains spec review metrics path', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('spec-review.jsonl');
+  });
+
+  test('contains convergence guard', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/convergence/i);
+  });
+
+  // Visual Sketch (Phase 4.5)
+  test('contains visual sketch section', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('Visual Sketch');
+  });
+
+  test('contains wireframe generation', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/wireframe|sketch/i);
+  });
+
+  test('contains DESIGN.md awareness', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('DESIGN.md');
+  });
+
+  test('contains browse rendering', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('$B goto');
+    expect(content).toContain('$B screenshot');
+  });
+
+  test('contains rough aesthetic instruction', () => {
+    expect(content).toMatch(/rough|hand-drawn/i);
+  });
 });
 
 describe('investigate skill structure', () => {
@@ -856,6 +909,22 @@ describe('CEO review mode validation', () => {
     expect(content).toContain('HOLD SCOPE');
     expect(content).toContain('REDUCTION');
   });
+
+  // Skill chaining (benefits-from)
+  test('contains prerequisite skill offer for office-hours', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('Prerequisite Skill Offer');
+    expect(content).toContain('/office-hours');
+  });
+
+  test('contains mid-session detection', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('Mid-session detection');
+    expect(content).toMatch(/still figuring out|seems lost/i);
+  });
+
+  // Spec review on CEO plans
+  test('contains spec review loop for CEO plan documents', () => {
+    expect(content).toContain('Spec Review Loop');
+  });
 });
 
 // --- gstack-slug helper ---