docs(skills): brainstorm-with-docs — перечитывание реагирует по уровню находки

Текстовые огрехи горячее ревью правит молча по месту; находку уровня
решений (противоречие, дыра в охвате) предъявляет владельцу, не исправляя
и не замалчивая. Довод владельца: текстовые находки видны и неопасны, а
противоречия при перечитывании не раз оказывались важными — плоский запрет
переоткрывать решения заставлял бы молчать или чинить мимо владельца.

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

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

@@ -156,9 +156,16 @@ shaped by three inputs:
 
 Landed shape — two tiers: `<self_review>` runs at step 6 on the plan (can send
 the run back to the interview; no file exists yet), step 7 writes the file once
-directly, then re-reads it end-to-end as a reader and fixes text-level defects
-in place (does not reopen decisions). Unlike upstream, the review itself is
-kept — `to-spec` has none; ours has content worth keeping.
+directly, then re-reads it end-to-end as a reader. Unlike upstream, the review
+itself is kept — `to-spec` has none; ours has content worth keeping.
+
+Follow-up (same day): the re-read's reaction now splits by the level of the
+find. Text-level — fix in place, silently. Decision-level (contradiction with
+docs or between sections, coverage hole, unhandled scenario) — present to the
+user, neither silently fixed nor suppressed. Owner's evidence: text-level finds
+are visible and harmless, but contradictions caught on re-read have mattered
+more than once; a flat "don't reopen decisions" ban would force the agent to
+either suppress such a find or fix it past the owner.
 
 ## v2 — remaining
 

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

@@ -244,10 +244,13 @@ 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, and fix what you find in place — wording, structure drift, sections
-that disagree with each other, template mismatches. This pass is cheap and
-regularly catches real defects; it polishes text, it does not reopen decisions
-(those passed `<self_review>` at step 6).
+author. 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
+to the user instead: neither fix it silently nor suppress it. Reopening a
+decision is the user's call. This re-read is cheap and regularly catches both
+kinds.
 
 Then go to `<stop_condition>`.