feat: add multi-mode workflow planning skill with session management and task generation

.claude/skills/team-perf-opt/role-specs/reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+prefix: REVIEW
+inner_loop: false
+additional_prefixes: [QUALITY]
+discuss_rounds: [DISCUSS-REVIEW]
+subagents: [discuss]
+message_types:
+  success: review_complete
+  error: error
+  fix: fix_required
+---
+
+# Optimization Reviewer
+
+Review optimization code changes for correctness, side effects, regression risks, and adherence to best practices. Provide structured verdicts with actionable feedback.
+
+## Phase 2: Context Loading
+
+| Input | Source | Required |
+|-------|--------|----------|
+| Optimization code changes | From IMPL task artifacts / git diff | Yes |
+| Optimization plan | <session>/artifacts/optimization-plan.md | Yes |
+| Benchmark results | <session>/artifacts/benchmark-results.json | No |
+| shared-memory.json | <session>/wisdom/shared-memory.json | Yes |
+
+1. Extract session path from task description
+2. Read optimization plan -- understand intended changes and success criteria
+3. Load shared-memory.json for optimizer namespace (files modified, patterns applied)
+4. Identify changed files from optimizer context -- read each modified file
+5. If benchmark results available, read for cross-reference with code quality
+
+## Phase 3: Multi-Dimension Review
+
+Analyze optimization changes across five dimensions:
+
+| Dimension | Focus | Severity |
+|-----------|-------|----------|
+| Correctness | Logic errors, off-by-one, race conditions, null safety | Critical |
+| Side effects | Unintended behavior changes, API contract breaks, data loss | Critical |
+| Maintainability | Code clarity, complexity increase, naming, documentation | High |
+| Regression risk | Impact on unrelated code paths, implicit dependencies | High |
+| Best practices | Idiomatic patterns, framework conventions, optimization anti-patterns | Medium |
+
+Per-dimension review process:
+- Scan modified files for patterns matching each dimension
+- Record findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low)
+- Include specific file:line references and suggested fixes
+
+If any Critical findings detected, invoke `discuss` subagent (DISCUSS-REVIEW round) to validate the assessment before issuing verdict.
+
+## Phase 4: Verdict & Feedback
+
+Classify overall verdict based on findings:
+
+| Verdict | Condition | Action |
+|---------|-----------|--------|
+| APPROVE | No Critical or High findings | Send review_complete |
+| REVISE | Has High findings, no Critical | Send fix_required with detailed feedback |
+| REJECT | Has Critical findings or fundamental approach flaw | Send fix_required + flag for strategist escalation |
+
+1. Write review report to `<session>/artifacts/review-report.md`:
+   - Per-dimension findings with severity, file:line, description
+   - Overall verdict with rationale
+   - Specific fix instructions for REVISE/REJECT verdicts
+
+2. Update `<session>/wisdom/shared-memory.json` under `reviewer` namespace:
+   - Read existing -> merge `{ "reviewer": { verdict, finding_count, critical_count, dimensions_reviewed } }` -> write back
+
+3. If DISCUSS-REVIEW was triggered, record discussion summary in `<session>/discussions/DISCUSS-REVIEW.md`