Add cross-model review workflow

[tjlark23]

Summary

• Replaces the starter train page with a cross-model review desk for Conductor workflows.
• Adds a reusable local cross-model-review skill with builder, reviewer, specialist, and synthesis prompts.
• Updates Conductor repo prompts and the PR template so review artifacts are explicit.

Verification

• Opened index.html locally in Safari
• Checked responsive layout rules in source at mobile width
• Parsed .conductor/settings.toml
• Ran git diff --check

Cross-Model Review

• Builder artifact: commit 6cbb3e6
• Adversarial reviewer needed before merge: yes
• Specialist lens needed: frontend if the visual direction matters
• Synthesis notes or .context handoff: .context/plans/using-the-conductor-skill-because-this-is-specific.md

Risks

• The in-app Browser bridge failed before interaction with sandboxCwd must be an absolute file URI, so visual proof used Safari plus static responsive checks.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6cbb3e641c

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Remove hard-coded user name from the builder prompt

When anyone other than TJ uses the prompt kit, the copied Builder prompt tells agents not to ask TJ to perform technical steps, which makes the generic Conductor workflow address the wrong person and can confuse handoffs. The same hard-coded name also appears in the reusable cross-model-review skill, so this should use a neutral phrase like “the user” instead.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.