docs(skills): brainstorm-with-docs — hot и cold review названы в самом скилле

Скиллом пользуются не только на машинах с глобальным словарём — он должен
быть самодостаточным. Шаг 7 называет перечитывание hot review с глоссой
оси (полный контекст автора: дёшево, но слепота общая), stop_condition
предлагает cold review свежей сессией как следующий шаг при высоких
ставках. Тёплое ревью не внесено: скилл им не пользуется.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

agents/.agents/skills/brainstorm-with-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -244,7 +244,9 @@ Otherwise use the conventional homes — `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root, ADRs in
 as part of step 6 rather than guessing. Create directories lazily.
 
 After writing, re-read the written file end-to-end as its reader, not its
-author. React by the level of what you find. Text-level defects — wording,
+author — a **hot review**: the reviewer carries the author's full context,
+which makes it cheap, and shares the author's blind spots, which is its limit.
+React by the level of what you find. Text-level defects — wording,
 structure drift, template mismatches — fix in place, silently. A
 decision-level find — a contradiction with existing docs or between the
 artifact's own sections, a hole in coverage, an unhandled scenario — present
@@ -300,6 +302,8 @@ user explicitly asks to implement. Offer a small set of next actions, such as:
 * create or update an ADR
 * update `CONTEXT.md`
 * create a runbook
+* hand the artifact to a **cold review** — a fresh session or agent with no
+  shared context — where the stakes warrant an independent eye
 * derive a compact implementation checklist
 * start implementation (only on explicit request)