pr-reviewlisted

# PR Review Canonical review methodology. Produces structured findings only; **never posts to GitHub**. `pr-review-comment` loads this skill and handles posting — keep all methodology here to avoid divergence. ```xml <pull-request-review> <task>Review the pull request identified by `$ARGUMENTS` and produce structured findings. Do not post anything to GitHub.</task> <steps> <step num="1">Run `gh pr view $ARGUMENTS` to get PR title, description, and metadata</step> <step num="2">Run `gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS` to get the full diff — always PR vs `origin/main`, regardless of the local branch checked out</step> <step num="3">Research project conventions stored in `CLAUDE.md`, `.claude/**/*` and `docs/*`. Before critiquing implementation, check whether the dev is following established project practice</step> <step num="4">Classify every finding by <taxonomy/> type and by scope (line / file / cross-file)</step> <step num="5">Where a line-scoped 🔴/🟠/🟡 finding has a concrete fix, write it as a committable ```suggestion block per <suggestions/></step> <step num="6">Write every comment body **and the `summary`** (including the follow-up delta, when in that mode) per the writing-style skill's anti-slop rules (no em dashes, no contrastive couplets, no parade-of-examples, lead with specifics). This isn't just style guidance here — when this skill's output feeds `pr-review-comment`, its `partition-findings.mjs` hard-fails the post on any em-dash/en-dash in the