Merge upstream v2.67.0 with fork customizations preserved

Synced 79 commits from EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin upstream while
preserving fork-specific customizations (Python/FastAPI pivot, Zoominfo-internal
review agents, deploy-wiring operational lessons, custom personas).

## Triage decisions (15 conflicts resolved)

Keep deleted (7) -- fork already removed these in prior cleanups:
- agents/design/{design-implementation-reviewer,design-iterator,figma-design-sync}
  (no fork successor; backend-Python focus doesn't need UI/Figma agents)
- agents/docs/ankane-readme-writer (replaced by python-package-readme-writer)
- agents/review/{data-migration-expert,performance-oracle,security-sentinel}
  (replaced by *-reviewer naming convention: data-migrations-reviewer,
  performance-reviewer, security-reviewer)

Keep local (1):
- agents/workflow/lint.md (Python tooling: ruff/mypy/djlint/bandit; upstream
  deleted the file). Fixed pre-existing duplicate "2." numbering bug.

Restore from upstream (1):
- agents/review/data-integrity-guardian.md (kept for GDPR/CCPA privacy
  compliance angle not covered by data-migrations-reviewer)

Merge both (6) -- upstream structural wins layered with fork intent:
- agents/research/best-practices-researcher.md (upstream <examples> removal +
  fork's Rails/Ruby -> Python/FastAPI translations)
- skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md (universal-brainstorming routing + Slack
  context + non-obvious angles + fork's Deploy wiring flag)
- skills/ce-plan/SKILL.md (universal-planning routing + planning-bootstrap +
  fork's two Deploy wiring check bullets)
- skills/ce-review/SKILL.md (Run ID, model tiering haiku->sonnet, compact-JSON
  artifact contract, file-type awareness, cli-readiness-reviewer + fork's
  zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, Stage 6 Zip Agent
  Validation)
- skills/ce-review/references/persona-catalog.md (cli-readiness row + adversarial
  refinement + fork's Language & Framework Conditional layer; 22 personas total)
- skills/ce-work/SKILL.md (Parallel Safety Check, parallel-subagent constraints,
  Phase 3-4 compression + fork's deploy-values self-review row, with duplicate
  checklist bullet collapsed to single occurrence)

## Auto-applied (no triage needed)

- 225 remote-only files: accepted as-is (new docs, brainstorms, plans,
  upstream skills, tests, scripts)
- 70 local-only files: 46 preserved as-is (kieran-python, tiangolo-fastapi,
  zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, essay/proof commands,
  excalidraw-png-export, etc.); 24 stayed deleted (dhh-rails-style,
  andrew-kane-gem-writer, dspy-ruby Ruby skills no longer needed)

## README updated

- Removed Design section (3 deleted agents)
- Removed deleted Review entries (data-migration-expert, dhh-rails-reviewer,
  kieran-rails-reviewer, performance-oracle, security-sentinel)
- Added new Review entries: design-conformance-reviewer, previous-comments-reviewer,
  tiangolo-fastapi-reviewer, zip-agent-validator
- Workflow: added lint
- Docs: replaced ankane-readme-writer with python-package-readme-writer

## Known issues (not introduced by merge decisions)

- 9 detect-project-type.sh tests fail on macOS bash 3.2 (script uses
  `declare -A` which requires bash 4+). Upstream regression in commit 070092d
  (#568). Resolution: install bash 4+ via `brew install bash` locally;
  upstream fix tracked separately.
- 2 review-skill-contract tests reference deleted agents (dhh-rails-reviewer,
  data-migration-expert). Pre-existing fork inconsistency, not new.

bun run release:validate: passes (46 agents, 51 skills, 0 MCP servers)

plugins/compound-engineering/skills/story-lens/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+name: story-lens
+description: This skill should be used when evaluating whether a piece of prose constitutes a high-quality story. It applies George Saunders's craft framework — causality, escalation, efficiency, expectation, and character accumulation — as a structured diagnostic lens. Triggers on requests like "is this a good story?", "review this prose", "does this feel like a story or just an anecdote?", "critique this narrative", or any request to assess the craft quality of fiction or narrative nonfiction.
+---
+
+# Story Lens
+
+A diagnostic skill for evaluating prose quality using George Saunders's storytelling framework. The framework operates on a single core insight: the difference between a story and an anecdote is causality plus irreversible change.
+
+Load [saunders-framework.md](./references/saunders-framework.md) for the full framework, including all diagnostic questions and definitions.
+
+## How to Apply the Skill
+
+### 1. Read the Prose
+
+Read the full piece before forming any judgments. Resist diagnosing on first pass.
+
+### 2. Apply the Six Diagnostic Questions in Order
+
+Each question builds on the previous.
+
+**Beat Causality**
+Map the beats. Does each beat cause the next? Or are they sequential — "and then... and then..."? Sequential beats = anecdote. Causal beats = story.
+
+**Escalation**
+Is the story moving up a staircase or running on a treadmill? Each step must be irrevocable. Once a character's condition has fundamentally changed, the story cannot re-enact that change or linger in elaboration. Look for sections that feel like they're holding still.
+
+**The Story-Yet Test**
+Stop at the end of each major section and ask: *if it ended here, would it be complete?* Something must have changed irreversibly. If nothing has changed, everything so far is setup — not story.
+
+**Character Accumulation**
+Track what the reader learns about the character, beat by beat. Is that knowledge growing? Does each beat confirm, complicate, or overturn prior understanding? Flat accumulation = underdeveloped character. Specificity accrues into care.
+
+**The Three E's**
+Check against the triad: Escalation (moving forward), Efficiency (nothing extraneous), Expectation (next beat is surprising but not absurd). Failure in any one of these is diagnosable.
+
+**Moral/Technical Unity**
+If something feels off emotionally or ethically — a character's choice that doesn't ring true, a resolution that feels unearned — look for the technical failure underneath. Saunders's claim: it is always there. Find the craft problem, and the moral problem dissolves.
+
+### 3. Render a Verdict
+
+After applying all six diagnostics, deliver a clear assessment:
+
+- Is this a story, or still an anecdote?
+- Which diagnostic reveals the primary weakness?
+- What is the single most important structural fix?
+
+Be direct. The framework produces precise, actionable diagnoses — not impressionistic feedback. Imprecise praise or vague encouragement is not useful here. The goal is to help the writer see exactly where the story is working and where it isn't.