Tone down review loops: single-pass plan review, raise issue bar

- Remove chunk-based plan review in favor of single whole-plan review
- Add Calibration sections to both reviewer prompts so only serious
  issues block approval
- Reduce max review iterations from 5 to 3
- Streamline reviewer checklists (spec: 7→5, plan: 7→4 categories)

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
 4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
 5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
 6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
-7. **Spec review loop** — dispatch spec-document-reviewer subagent with precisely crafted review context (never your session history); fix issues and re-dispatch until approved (max 5 iterations, then surface to human)
+7. **Spec review loop** — dispatch spec-document-reviewer subagent with precisely crafted review context (never your session history); fix issues and re-dispatch until approved (max 3 iterations, then surface to human)
 8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
 9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
 
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ After writing the spec document:
 
 1. Dispatch spec-document-reviewer subagent (see spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md)
 2. If Issues Found: fix, re-dispatch, repeat until Approved
-3. If loop exceeds 5 iterations, surface to human for guidance
+3. If loop exceeds 3 iterations, surface to human for guidance
 
 **User Review Gate:**
 After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:

skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -19,32 +19,31 @@ Task tool (general-purpose):
     | Category | What to Look For |
     |----------|------------------|
     | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
-    | Coverage | Missing error handling, edge cases, integration points |
     | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
-    | Clarity | Ambiguous requirements |
-    | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
+    | Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
     | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
-    | Architecture | Units with clear boundaries, well-defined interfaces, independently understandable and testable |
+    | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
 
-    ## CRITICAL
+    ## Calibration
 
-    Look especially hard for:
-    - Any TODO markers or placeholder text
-    - Sections saying "to be defined later" or "will spec when X is done"
-    - Sections noticeably less detailed than others
-    - Units that lack clear boundaries or interfaces — can you understand what each unit does without reading its internals?
+    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
+    A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
+    interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
+    stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.
+
+    Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.
 
     ## Output Format
 
     ## Spec Review
 
-    **Status:** ✅ Approved | ❌ Issues Found
+    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
 
     **Issues (if any):**
-    - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters]
+    - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]
 
-    **Recommendations (advisory):**
-    - [suggestions that don't block approval]
+    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
+    - [suggestions for improvement]
 ```
 
 **Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations