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/references/saunders-framework.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# The Saunders Storytelling Framework
+
+A distillation of George Saunders's craft principles for evaluating whether prose constitutes a high-quality story.
+
+---
+
+## The Fundamental Unit: The Beat
+
+Every moment in a story is a beat. Each beat must *cause* the next beat. Saunders calls causality "what melody is to a songwriter" — it's the invisible connective tissue the audience feels as the story's logic.
+
+The test: are beats **causal** or merely **sequential**?
+
+- Sequential (anecdote): "this happened, then this happened"
+- Causal (story): "this happened, *therefore* this happened"
+
+If beats are merely sequential, the work reads as anecdote, not story.
+
+---
+
+## What Transforms Anecdote into Story: Escalation
+
+> "Always be escalating. That's all a story is, really: a continual system of escalation. A swath of prose earns its place in the story to the extent that it contributes to our sense that the story is still escalating."
+
+Escalation isn't just raising stakes — it's **irrevocable change**. Once a story has moved forward through some fundamental change in a character's condition, you don't get to enact that change again, and you don't get to stay there elaborating on that state.
+
+**The story is a staircase, not a treadmill.**
+
+---
+
+## The "Is This a Story Yet?" Diagnostic
+
+Stop at any point and ask: *if it ended here, would it be complete?*
+
+Early on, the answer is almost always no — because nothing has changed yet. The story only becomes a story at the moment something changes irreversibly.
+
+**Precise test: change = story. No change = still just setup.**
+
+---
+
+## The "What Do We Know About This Character So Far?" Tool
+
+Take inventory constantly. A reader's understanding of a character is always a running accumulation — and every beat should either **confirm**, **complicate**, or **overturn** that understanding.
+
+The more we know about a person — their hopes, dreams, fears, and failures — the more compassionate we become toward them. This is how the empathy machine operates mechanically: **specificity accrues, and accrued specificity generates care.**
+
+---
+
+## The Three E's
+
+Three words that capture the full framework:
+
+1. **Escalation** — the story must continuously move forward through irrevocable change
+2. **Efficiency** — ruthlessly exclude anything extraneous to the story's purposes
+3. **Expectation** — what comes next must hit a Goldilocks level: not too obvious, not too absurd
+
+---
+
+## The Moral/Technical Unity
+
+Any story that suffers from what seems like a **moral failing** will, with sufficient analytical attention, be found to be suffering from a **technical failing** — and if that failing is addressed, it will always become a better story.
+
+This means: when a story feels wrong emotionally or ethically, look for the craft problem first. The fix is almost always structural.
+
+---
+
+## Summary: The Diagnostic Questions
+
+Apply these in order to any piece of prose:
+
+1. **Beat causality** — Does each beat cause the next, or are they merely sequential?
+2. **Escalation** — Is the story continuously moving up the staircase, or running on a treadmill?
+3. **Story-yet test** — If it ended here, would something have irreversibly changed?
+4. **Character accumulation** — Is our understanding of the character growing richer with each beat?
+5. **Three E's check** — Is it escalating, efficient, and pitched at the right level of expectation?
+6. **Moral/technical unity** — If something feels off morally or emotionally, where is the technical failure?