Lift superpowers:code-reviewer agent into the requesting-code-review skill

The plugin had a single named agent (`agents/code-reviewer.md`) used by
two skills, while every other reviewer/implementer subagent in the repo
is dispatched as `general-purpose` with the prompt template living
alongside its skill. That asymmetry had no upside and several costs:

- Two sources of truth for the code review checklist (the agent file
  and `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`), both drifting
  independently.
- `Codex` users could not use the named agent directly; the codex-tools
  reference doc had a workaround section explaining how to flatten the
  named agent into a `worker` dispatch.
- No third-party reliance on `superpowers:code-reviewer` inside this
  repo.

Changes:
- Merge `agents/code-reviewer.md` (persona + checklist) and
  `skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` (placeholder
  template) into a single self-contained Task-dispatch template,
  matching the shape of `implementer-prompt.md`,
  `spec-reviewer-prompt.md`, etc.
- Update `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md` and
  `skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
  to dispatch `Task (general-purpose)` instead of the named agent.
- Drop the now-obsolete "Named agent dispatch" workaround sections from
  `codex-tools.md` and `copilot-tools.md` — superpowers no longer ships
  any named agents, so those instructions documented nothing.
- Delete `agents/code-reviewer.md` and the empty `agents/` directory.

Tier 3 coverage for the change: a new behavioral test
`tests/claude-code/test-requesting-code-review.sh` plants real bugs
(SQL injection, plaintext password handling, credential logging) into
a tiny project, runs the actual `requesting-code-review` skill against
the working tree, and asserts the dispatched reviewer flags every
planted issue at Critical/Important severity and refuses to approve
the diff.

Verified end-to-end on this branch:
- The new test passes (5/5 assertions; reviewer caught all planted
  bugs and several others).
- The existing SDD integration test still passes (7/7 subagents
  dispatched, all as `general-purpose`; spec compliance still
  rejects extra features; produced code is correct).
- Session JSONLs confirm zero remaining `superpowers:code-reviewer`
  dispatches anywhere in the SDD pipeline.

Author: obra

agents/code-reviewer.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before m
 
 # Requesting Code Review
 
-Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
 
 **Core principle:** Review early, review often.
 
@@ -29,16 +29,15 @@ BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
 HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
 ```
 
-**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
+**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**
 
-Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
+Use Task tool with `general-purpose` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
 
 **Placeholders:**
-- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
 - `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
 - `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
 - `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
-- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
 
 **3. Act on feedback:**
 - Fix Critical issues immediately
@@ -56,12 +55,11 @@ You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
 BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
 HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
 
-[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
-  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
+[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
   PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
   BASE_SHA: a7981ec
   HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
-  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
 
 [Subagent returns]:
   Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests

skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,111 +1,133 @@
-# Code Review Agent
+# Code Reviewer Prompt Template
 
-You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.
+Use this template when dispatching a code reviewer subagent.
 
-**Your task:**
-1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
-2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
-3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
-4. Categorize issues by severity
-5. Assess production readiness
+**Purpose:** Review completed work against requirements and code quality standards before it cascades into more work.
 
-## What Was Implemented
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review code changes"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture,
+    design patterns, and best practices. Your job is to review completed work
+    against its plan or requirements and identify issues before they cascade.
 
-{DESCRIPTION}
+    ## What Was Implemented
 
-## Requirements/Plan
+    {DESCRIPTION}
 
-{PLAN_REFERENCE}
+    ## Requirements / Plan
 
-## Git Range to Review
+    {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
 
-**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
-**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
+    ## Git Range to Review
 
-```bash
-git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-```
+    **Base:** {BASE_SHA}
+    **Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
 
-## Review Checklist
-
-**Code Quality:**
-- Clean separation of concerns?
-- Proper error handling?
-- Type safety (if applicable)?
-- DRY principle followed?
-- Edge cases handled?
-
-**Architecture:**
-- Sound design decisions?
-- Scalability considerations?
-- Performance implications?
-- Security concerns?
-
-**Testing:**
-- Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
-- Edge cases covered?
-- Integration tests where needed?
-- All tests passing?
-
-**Requirements:**
-- All plan requirements met?
-- Implementation matches spec?
-- No scope creep?
-- Breaking changes documented?
-
-**Production Readiness:**
-- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
-- Backward compatibility considered?
-- Documentation complete?
-- No obvious bugs?
-
-## Output Format
+    ```bash
+    git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    ```
 
-### Strengths
-[What's well done? Be specific.]
+    ## What to Check
 
-### Issues
+    **Plan alignment:**
+    - Does the implementation match the plan / requirements?
+    - Are deviations justified improvements, or problematic departures?
+    - Is all planned functionality present?
 
-#### Critical (Must Fix)
-[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
+    **Code quality:**
+    - Clean separation of concerns?
+    - Proper error handling?
+    - Type safety where applicable?
+    - DRY without premature abstraction?
+    - Edge cases handled?
 
-#### Important (Should Fix)
-[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
+    **Architecture:**
+    - Sound design decisions?
+    - Reasonable scalability and performance?
+    - Security concerns?
+    - Integrates cleanly with surrounding code?
 
-#### Minor (Nice to Have)
-[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]
+    **Testing:**
+    - Tests verify real behavior, not mocks?
+    - Edge cases covered?
+    - Integration tests where they matter?
+    - All tests passing?
 
-**For each issue:**
-- File:line reference
-- What's wrong
-- Why it matters
-- How to fix (if not obvious)
+    **Production readiness:**
+    - Migration strategy if schema changed?
+    - Backward compatibility considered?
+    - Documentation complete?
+    - No obvious bugs?
 
-### Recommendations
-[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
+    ## Calibration
 
-### Assessment
+    Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.
+    Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
+    helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
+
+    If you find significant deviations from the plan, flag them specifically
+    so the implementer can confirm whether the deviation was intentional.
+    If you find issues with the plan itself rather than the implementation,
+    say so.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ### Strengths
+    [What's well done? Be specific.]
+
+    ### Issues
 
-**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]
+    #### Critical (Must Fix)
+    [Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
 
-**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]
+    #### Important (Should Fix)
+    [Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
 
-## Critical Rules
+    #### Minor (Nice to Have)
+    [Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation polish]
+
+    For each issue:
+    - File:line reference
+    - What's wrong
+    - Why it matters
+    - How to fix (if not obvious)
+
+    ### Recommendations
+    [Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
+
+    ### Assessment
+
+    **Ready to merge?** [Yes | No | With fixes]
+
+    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment]
+
+    ## Critical Rules
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Categorize by actual severity
+    - Be specific (file:line, not vague)
+    - Explain WHY each issue matters
+    - Acknowledge strengths
+    - Give a clear verdict
+
+    **DON'T:**
+    - Say "looks good" without checking
+    - Mark nitpicks as Critical
+    - Give feedback on code you didn't actually read
+    - Be vague ("improve error handling")
+    - Avoid giving a clear verdict
+```
 
-**DO:**
-- Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
-- Be specific (file:line, not vague)
-- Explain WHY issues matter
-- Acknowledge strengths
-- Give clear verdict
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` — brief summary of what was built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` — what it should do (plan file path, task text, or requirements)
+- `{BASE_SHA}` — starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` — ending commit
 
-**DON'T:**
-- Say "looks good" without checking
-- Mark nitpicks as Critical
-- Give feedback on code you didn't review
-- Be vague ("improve error handling")
-- Avoid giving a clear verdict
+**Reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical / Important / Minor), Recommendations, Assessment
 
 ## Example Output
 

skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

@@ -7,14 +7,13 @@ Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
 **Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.**
 
 ```
-Task tool (superpowers:code-reviewer):
+Task tool (general-purpose):
   Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
 
-  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: [from implementer's report]
+  DESCRIPTION: [task summary, from implementer's report]
   PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
   BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
   HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
-  DESCRIPTION: [task summary]
 ```
 
 **In addition to standard code quality concerns, the reviewer should check:**

skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Skills use Claude Code tool names. When you encounter these in a skill, use your
 
 | Skill references | Codex equivalent |
 |-----------------|------------------|
-| `Task` tool (dispatch subagent) | `spawn_agent` (see [Named agent dispatch](#named-agent-dispatch)) |
+| `Task` tool (dispatch subagent) | `spawn_agent` (see [Subagent dispatch requires multi-agent support](#subagent-dispatch-requires-multi-agent-support)) |
 | Multiple `Task` calls (parallel) | Multiple `spawn_agent` calls |
 | Task returns result | `wait_agent` |
 | Task completes automatically | `close_agent` to free slot |
@@ -29,53 +29,6 @@ waiting as `wait`. Current Codex uses `wait_agent` for spawned agents. The
 `wait` name now belongs to code-mode `exec/wait`, which resumes a yielded exec
 cell by `cell_id`; it is not the spawned-agent result tool.
 
-## Named agent dispatch
-
-Claude Code skills reference named agent types like `superpowers:code-reviewer`.
-Codex does not have a named agent registry — `spawn_agent` creates generic agents
-from built-in roles (`default`, `explorer`, `worker`).
-
-When a skill says to dispatch a named agent type:
-
-1. Find the agent's prompt file (e.g., `agents/code-reviewer.md` or the skill's
-   local prompt template like `code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`)
-2. Read the prompt content
-3. Fill any template placeholders (`{BASE_SHA}`, `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}`, etc.)
-4. Spawn a `worker` agent with the filled content as the `message`
-
-| Skill instruction | Codex equivalent |
-|-------------------|------------------|
-| `Task tool (superpowers:code-reviewer)` | `spawn_agent(agent_type="worker", message=...)` with `code-reviewer.md` content |
-| `Task tool (general-purpose)` with inline prompt | `spawn_agent(message=...)` with the same prompt |
-
-### Message framing
-
-The `message` parameter is user-level input, not a system prompt. Structure it
-for maximum instruction adherence:
-
-```
-Your task is to perform the following. Follow the instructions below exactly.
-
-<agent-instructions>
-[filled prompt content from the agent's .md file]
-</agent-instructions>
-
-Execute this now. Output ONLY the structured response following the format
-specified in the instructions above.
-```
-
-- Use task-delegation framing ("Your task is...") rather than persona framing ("You are...")
-- Wrap instructions in XML tags — the model treats tagged blocks as authoritative
-- End with an explicit execution directive to prevent summarization of the instructions
-
-### When this workaround can be removed
-
-This approach compensates for Codex not yet exposing plugin-packaged custom
-agents as named `spawn_agent` targets. OpenAI plugin examples can include
-plugin-level `agents/` directories, but skills still need to read those prompts
-and spawn a built-in agent role. When Codex exposes plugin agents as callable
-named agent types, this manual prompt-loading workaround can be removed.
-
 ## Environment Detection
 
 Skills that create worktrees or finish branches should detect their