feat: redesign document-review skill with persona-based review (#359)

plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/references/review-output-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# Document Review Output Template
+
+Use this **exact format** when presenting synthesized review findings. Findings are grouped by severity, not by reviewer.
+
+**IMPORTANT:** Use pipe-delimited markdown tables (`| col | col |`). Do NOT use ASCII box-drawing characters.
+
+## Example
+
+```markdown
+## Document Review Results
+
+**Document:** docs/plans/2026-03-15-feat-user-auth-plan.md
+**Type:** plan
+**Reviewers:** coherence, feasibility, security-lens, scope-guardian
+- security-lens -- plan adds public API endpoint with auth flow
+- scope-guardian -- plan has 15 requirements across 3 priority levels
+
+### Auto-fixes Applied
+
+- Standardized "pipeline"/"workflow" terminology to "pipeline" throughout (coherence, auto)
+- Fixed cross-reference: Section 4 referenced "Section 3.2" which is actually "Section 3.1" (coherence, auto)
+
+### P0 -- Must Fix
+
+| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
+|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
+| 1 | Requirements Trace | Goal states "offline support" but technical approach assumes persistent connectivity | coherence | 0.92 | `present` |
+
+### P1 -- Should Fix
+
+| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
+|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
+| 2 | Implementation Unit 3 | Plan proposes custom auth when codebase already uses Devise | feasibility | 0.85 | `present` |
+| 3 | Scope Boundaries | 8 of 12 units build admin infrastructure; only 2 touch stated goal | scope-guardian | 0.80 | `present` |
+
+### P2 -- Consider Fixing
+
+| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
+|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
+| 4 | API Design | Public webhook endpoint has no rate limiting mentioned | security-lens | 0.75 | `present` |
+
+### P3 -- Minor
+
+| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
+|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
+| 5 | Overview | "Service" used to mean both microservice and business class | coherence | 0.65 | `auto` |
+
+### Residual Concerns
+
+| # | Concern | Source |
+|---|---------|--------|
+| 1 | Migration rollback strategy not addressed for Phase 2 data changes | feasibility |
+
+### Deferred Questions
+
+| # | Question | Source |
+|---|---------|--------|
+| 1 | Should the API use versioned endpoints from launch? | feasibility, security-lens |
+
+### Coverage
+
+| Persona | Status | Findings | Residual |
+|---------|--------|----------|----------|
+| coherence | completed | 2 | 0 |
+| feasibility | completed | 1 | 1 |
+| security-lens | completed | 1 | 0 |
+| scope-guardian | completed | 1 | 0 |
+| product-lens | not activated | -- | -- |
+| design-lens | not activated | -- | -- |
+```
+
+## Section Rules
+
+- **Auto-fixes Applied**: List fixes that were applied automatically (auto class). Omit section if none.
+- **P0-P3 sections**: Only include sections that have findings. Omit empty severity levels.
+- **Residual Concerns**: Findings below confidence threshold that were promoted by cross-persona corroboration, plus unpromoted residual risks. Omit if none.
+- **Deferred Questions**: Questions for later workflow stages. Omit if none.
+- **Coverage**: Always include. Shows which personas ran and their output counts.