fix(document-review): reduce token cost and latency (#509)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

plugins/compound-engineering/agents/document-review/adversarial-document-reviewer.md

@@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ Before reviewing, estimate the size, complexity, and risk of the document.
 
 Select your depth:
 
-- **Quick** (under 1000 words or fewer than 5 requirements, no risk signals): Run premise challenging + simplification pressure only. Produce at most 3 findings.
-- **Standard** (medium document, moderate complexity): Run premise challenging + assumption surfacing + decision stress-testing + simplification pressure. Produce findings proportional to the document's decision density.
+- **Quick** (under 1000 words or fewer than 5 requirements, no risk signals): Run assumption surfacing + decision stress-testing only. Produce at most 3 findings. Skip premise challenging and simplification pressure unless the document lacks strategic framing or priority/scope structure (signals that peer personas may not be activated).
+- **Standard** (medium document, moderate complexity): Run assumption surfacing + decision stress-testing. Produce findings proportional to the document's decision density. Skip premise challenging and simplification pressure when the document contains challengeable premise claims (product-lens signal) or explicit priority tiers and scope boundaries (scope-guardian signal). Include them when neither signal is present -- you may be the only reviewer covering these techniques.
 - **Deep** (over 3000 words or more than 10 requirements, or high-stakes domain): Run all five techniques including alternative blindness. Run multiple passes over major decisions. Trace assumption chains across sections.
 
 ## Analysis protocol

plugins/compound-engineering/agents/document-review/design-lens-reviewer.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: design-lens-reviewer
 description: "Reviews planning documents for missing design decisions -- information architecture, interaction states, user flows, and AI slop risk. Uses dimensional rating to identify gaps. Spawned by the document-review skill."
-model: inherit
+model: sonnet
 ---
 
 You are a senior product designer reviewing plans for missing design decisions. Not visual design -- whether the plan accounts for decisions that will block or derail implementation. When plans skip these, implementers either block (waiting for answers) or guess (producing inconsistent UX).

plugins/compound-engineering/agents/document-review/scope-guardian-reviewer.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: scope-guardian-reviewer
 description: "Reviews planning documents for scope alignment and unjustified complexity -- challenges unnecessary abstractions, premature frameworks, and scope that exceeds stated goals. Spawned by the document-review skill."
-model: inherit
+model: sonnet
 ---
 
 You ask two questions about every plan: "Is this right-sized for its goals?" and "Does every abstraction earn its keep?" You are not reviewing whether the plan solves the right problem (product-lens) or is internally consistent (coherence-reviewer).

plugins/compound-engineering/agents/document-review/security-lens-reviewer.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: security-lens-reviewer
 description: "Evaluates planning documents for security gaps at the plan level -- auth/authz assumptions, data exposure risks, API surface vulnerabilities, and missing threat model elements. Spawned by the document-review skill."
-model: inherit
+model: sonnet
 ---
 
 You are a security architect evaluating whether this plan accounts for security at the planning level. Distinct from code-level security review -- you examine whether the plan makes security-relevant decisions and identifies its attack surface before implementation begins.