Close three review blind spots found by defect tracing

Live eval deliverables shipped five polish defects; tracing each through
the transcripts showed three mechanisms, each now addressed:
- reviewers answered pointed checklist items with unsupported yes
  (evidence rule: every What-to-Check answer needs file:line evidence)
- no reviewer ever saw the design's global constraints (controllers now
  paste binding constraints into task requirements)
- test output noise was invisible everywhere (pristine-output checks in
  implementer self-review and quality review)

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -149,6 +149,9 @@ final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
   ignore or not flag a specific issue. If you believe a finding would be a
   false positive, let the reviewer raise it and adjudicate it in the review
   loop.
+- Include the spec/design's global constraints that bind the task (version
+  floors, naming and copy rules, platform requirements) in the requirements
+  you paste — a reviewer can only enforce what you hand them.
 
 ## Prompt Templates
 

skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -61,6 +61,9 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     running it. If you cannot run commands in this environment, name the
     test you would run.
 
+    Warnings or other noise in the implementer's reported test output are
+    findings — test output should be pristine.
+
     ## What to Check
 
     **Code quality:**
@@ -81,6 +84,9 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
       significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file
       sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
 
+    Answer each item above with file:line evidence, not a bare yes or no.
+    An unsupported "yes" is not a review.
+
     ## Calibration
 
     Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.

skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md

@@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     - Do tests actually verify behavior (not just mock behavior)?
     - Did I follow TDD if required?
     - Are tests comprehensive?
+    - Is the test output pristine (no stray warnings or noise)?
 
     If you find issues during self-review, fix them now before reporting.