feat: adversarial spec review loop + skill chaining (v0.9.1.0)

.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

.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?
 ```

.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?

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

VERSION

@@ -1 +1 @@
-0.9.0.1
+0.9.1.0