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/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