feat: migrate all codex team skills from spawn_agents_on_csv to spawn_agent + wait_agent architecture

- Delete 21 old team skill directories using CSV-wave pipeline pattern (~100+ files)
- Delete old team-lifecycle (v3) and team-planex-v2
- Create generic team-worker.toml and team-supervisor.toml (replacing tlv4-specific TOMLs)
- Convert 19 team skills from Claude Code format (Agent/SendMessage/TaskCreate)
  to Codex format (spawn_agent/wait_agent/tasks.json/request_user_input)
- Update team-lifecycle-v4 to use generic agent types (team_worker/team_supervisor)
- Convert all coordinator role files: dispatch.md, monitor.md, role.md
- Convert all worker role files: remove run_in_background, fix Bash syntax
- Convert all specs/pipelines.md references
- Final state: 20 team skills, 217 .md files, zero Claude Code API residuals

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.codex/skills/team-quality-assurance/roles/analyst/role.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+role: analyst
+prefix: QAANA
+inner_loop: false
+message_types:
+  success: analysis_ready
+  report: quality_report
+  error: error
+---
+
+# Quality Analyst
+
+Analyze defect patterns, coverage gaps, test effectiveness, and generate comprehensive quality reports. Maintain defect pattern database and provide quality scoring.
+
+## Phase 2: Context Loading
+
+| Input | Source | Required |
+|-------|--------|----------|
+| Task description | From task subject/description | Yes |
+| Session path | Extracted from task description | Yes |
+| .msg/meta.json | <session>/wisdom/.msg/meta.json | Yes |
+| Discovered issues | meta.json -> discovered_issues | No |
+| Test strategy | meta.json -> test_strategy | No |
+| Generated tests | meta.json -> generated_tests | No |
+| Execution results | meta.json -> execution_results | No |
+| Historical patterns | meta.json -> defect_patterns | No |
+
+1. Extract session path from task description
+2. Read .msg/meta.json for all accumulated QA data
+3. Read coverage data from `coverage/coverage-summary.json` if available
+4. Read layer execution results from `<session>/results/run-*.json`
+5. Select analysis mode:
+
+| Data Points | Mode |
+|-------------|------|
+| <= 5 issues + results | Direct inline analysis |
+| > 5 | CLI-assisted deep analysis via gemini |
+
+## Phase 3: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
+
+**Five analysis dimensions**:
+
+1. **Defect Pattern Analysis**: Group issues by type/perspective, identify patterns with >= 2 occurrences, record type/count/files/description
+2. **Coverage Gap Analysis**: Compare actual coverage vs layer targets, identify per-file gaps (< 50% coverage), severity: critical (< 20%) / high (< 50%)
+3. **Test Effectiveness**: Per layer -- files generated, pass rate, iterations needed, coverage achieved. Effective = pass_rate >= 95% AND iterations <= 2
+4. **Quality Trend**: Compare against coverage_history. Trend: improving (delta > 5%), declining (delta < -5%), stable
+5. **Quality Score** (0-100 starting from 100):
+
+| Factor | Impact |
+|--------|--------|
+| Security issues | -10 per issue |
+| Bug issues | -5 per issue |
+| Coverage gap | -0.5 per gap percentage |
+| Test failures | -(100 - pass_rate) * 0.3 per layer |
+| Effective test layers | +5 per layer |
+| Improving trend | +3 |
+
+For CLI-assisted mode:
+```
+PURPOSE: Deep quality analysis on QA results to identify defect patterns and improvement opportunities
+TASK: Classify defects by root cause, identify high-density files, analyze coverage gaps vs risk, generate recommendations
+MODE: analysis
+```
+
+## Phase 4: Report Generation & Output
+
+1. Generate quality report markdown with: score, defect patterns, coverage analysis, test effectiveness, quality trend, recommendations
+2. Write report to `<session>/analysis/quality-report.md`
+3. Update `<session>/wisdom/.msg/meta.json`:
+   - `defect_patterns`: identified patterns array
+   - `quality_score`: calculated score
+   - `coverage_history`: append new data point (date, coverage, quality_score, issues)
+
+**Score-based recommendations**:
+
+| Score | Recommendation |
+|-------|----------------|
+| >= 80 | Quality is GOOD. Maintain current testing practices. |
+| 60-79 | Quality needs IMPROVEMENT. Focus on coverage gaps and recurring patterns. |
+| < 60 | Quality is CONCERNING. Recommend comprehensive review and testing effort. |