docs(claude-playbook): перенесены находки зеркального codex-плейбука

- Зачем:
  - зеркальный codex-subagent-playbook ушёл вперёд по договорам ревью и
    экономии контекста координатора; согласованный с пользователем список
    находок перенесён в этот скилл.
- Что:
  - SKILL.md: установка «оптика, не конвейер», гейт и ручки эскалации для
    субагентов, саморевью исполнителя, шкала риска ревью с линзами
    TASK/CODE, статусы триажа с предохранителем кругов, постепенная
    приёмка с саморефлексией, раздел «Сбои координации».
  - prompts/: устойчивые ID находок, четыре статуса триажа, резолюции — в
    файл отчёта вместо тикета (лечит эхо файла задачи); новые
    result-contract.md и runtime-language.md.
  - prompt-templates.md: файлы линий ревью, сборка промптов с хвостом
    языка, вердикт перепроверки из task-notification; lessons.md — гейт
    на дистилляцию и датированная отмена урока про доводы в файле задачи.
- Проверка:
  - проверка относительных ссылок и git diff --check — чисто.

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

agents/.agents/skills/claude-subagent-playbook/references/prompts/recheck-header.md

@@ -1,13 +1,17 @@
 # Narrow re-check: do the fixes close your findings?
 
-The implementer has processed the findings of your review. Check ONLY your
-own findings — no full second pass. Mandate unchanged: modify nothing;
-reading and running tests are allowed.
+The implementer has processed the findings of your review; the path to
+their resolutions report is appended below. Check ONLY your own findings —
+no full second pass. Mandate unchanged: modify nothing; reading and
+running tests are allowed.
 
-Answer one line per your finding: CLOSED / NOT_CLOSED (why) /
-REJECTION_VALID / REJECTION_INVALID (why). If you spot a NEW defect while
-re-checking, report it in the same index format — narrowness limits scope,
-not honesty. Final line: RECHECK: ALL_CLOSED | ISSUES_REMAIN
+One line per your original ID: `ID | CLOSED | NOT_CLOSED (why) |
+REJECTION_VALID | REJECTION_INVALID (why)`. Judge a rejection by its
+argument in the resolutions report — contract and test, not taste. If you
+spot a NEW defect while re-checking, report it with a new ID in the same
+index format — narrowness limits scope, not honesty.
 
-The implementer's report path, test command and expected counters are
-appended below.
+Final line: RECHECK: ALL_CLOSED | ISSUES_REMAIN
+
+The implementer's resolutions report path, test command and expected
+counters are appended below.

agents/.agents/skills/claude-subagent-playbook/references/prompts/result-contract.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+## Result contract
+
+Report through the channel your call wrapper assigns:
+
+- STATUS: complete | questions | blocked
+- EVIDENCE: changed files, executed commands, final counters
+- DECISIONS: only questions the coordinator must answer
+- FINDINGS: severity, location, essence, how to verify
+- NEXT: one concrete action or "none"
+
+Omit empty sections. No raw output, no reasoning narrative. If a report
+file is assigned, put the full result there and return only STATUS,
+counters and `REPORT: <absolute path>`; otherwise return one concise
+message.

agents/.agents/skills/claude-subagent-playbook/references/prompts/review-boilerplate.md

@@ -11,7 +11,24 @@
 
 ## Findings file format — index only
 
-SEVERITY(BLOCKER|MAJOR|MINOR|NIT) | file:line (or spec/task-file section) | one-phrase essence | how to verify/reproduce
+One line per finding, with a stable ID (FINDING PREFIX comes from your
+parameter block):
+
+PREFIX-N | BLOCKER|MAJOR|MINOR|NIT | file:line (or spec/task-file section) | one-phrase essence | how to verify/reproduce
+
+- IDs are permanent: triage and re-checks refer to findings by ID only.
+- Confirmations of correctness — one line per item, no elaboration.
+- A NON-GATING CONSIDERATION is a material risk of a decision safely
+  deferred to a later owner: one line, no ID, no severity, not counted,
+  does not change the verdict. Do not prescribe the downstream
+  implementation.
+- ZERO findings: the report must list the reviewed scope and every check
+  or hypothesis you actually ran, with outcomes. A bare approval line is
+  invalid and will be discarded.
 
-Confirmations of correctness — one line per item, no elaboration.
 Final line: VERDICT: APPROVED | APPROVED_WITH_MINORS | CHANGES_REQUIRED
+
+For a statement/plan review: judge the document at its own level.
+Open implementation details do not make it incomplete — APPROVED means no
+defect the document itself must fix; record deferred-decision risks as
+non-gating considerations.

agents/.agents/skills/claude-subagent-playbook/references/prompts/runtime-language.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+## Runtime language
+
+Write every exchange file — reports, findings indexes, resolutions,
+prompts — in English. Do not infer the output language from the repository
+or the conversation. Content that ships into the repository (code
+comments, docs, commits, task files) follows the repository's own
+conventions instead.

agents/.agents/skills/claude-subagent-playbook/references/prompts/triage-header.md

@@ -1,17 +1,28 @@
 # Triage of findings from independent blind reviews of your implementation
 
-Below are the findings of the blind reviews, **verbatim**. Close what is
-listed, change nothing else. For each finding, either:
+Below are the findings of the blind reviews, **verbatim**. Process every
+finding ID; change nothing outside their scope. Assign each ID exactly one
+disposition:
 
-- a TDD fix — first a test reproducing the finding, then the fix; or
-- a reasoned rejection via contract/spec and test — a bare "not important"
-  is not accepted.
+- FIXED — a TDD fix: first a test reproducing the finding, then the fix;
+  name the check that proves closure;
+- REJECTED — a reasoned rejection via contract/spec and test; a bare
+  "not important" is not accepted;
+- OUT_OF_SCOPE — needs a boundary decision; state which one;
+- NEEDS_DECISION — a product, architecture, or risk choice a technical
+  argument cannot settle; state the open question.
 
-No commits. Record rejection arguments in the task file so a fresh thread
-can continue without this thread's context.
+OUT_OF_SCOPE and NEEDS_DECISION belong to the coordinator — do not
+silently decide them yourself.
 
-Final report: one line per finding — fixed (how) / rejected (argument +
-where recorded); test command, run counters, list of changed files.
+No commits. Do NOT edit the task file: write detailed resolutions and
+rejection arguments to your assigned report file — re-checks and fresh
+threads will read that file by path; the task file is updated separately
+at the end of the run.
+
+Final report: one line per ID — `ID | disposition | one-phrase essence`;
+then disposition counters, test command with counters, list of changed
+files, and open questions for the coordinator, if any.
 
 Orchestrator notes, if present below, carry task-level decisions (out of
 scope / risk accepted) and verified facts you don't have — they are not