Skills: fold in four external-skills-review borrows; record the comparison memo

.claude/skills/alignment/SKILL.md

@@ -54,6 +54,16 @@ Review all changes in scope. If changes span multiple patterns below, apply all
      only within their module (including `as const` arrays that exist to derive a type) stay
      unexported — `export type` the type, not its source array. Verify with Grep before
      exporting "for future use"; the future caller can add the export.
+   - **Smell baseline** (Fowler, _Refactoring_ ch. 3 — judgement calls, never hard
+     violations; a documented project rule overrides, and skip anything eslint/Prettier
+     already enforces): mysterious name (rename — if no honest name comes, the design is
+     murky); data clumps (the same few params traveling together → one type); primitive
+     obsession (a string/number standing in for a domain concept); feature envy (a function
+     reaching into another module's data more than its own); repeated switches (the same
+     discriminant cascade at multiple sites → one shared map); message chains
+     (`a.b().c().d()` → hide the walk behind the first object); middle man (a layer that
+     only delegates → call the target directly). Duplication and speculative generality are
+     covered by the cleanup rules above.
 
 5. **Styles and UI**: When altering CSS or layout, follow or generalize existing patterns
    (CSS Modules + design tokens in `styles/tokens.css`) rather than writing from scratch. Don't

.claude/skills/eng-council/SKILL.md

@@ -126,7 +126,9 @@ that prevents data loss, or accessibility.
 **If it must be built — what shape?** Line up the existing instances of the kind (modal,
 store, service, hook, persistence path), name the canonical shape, list what to reuse, and
 flag what the new work might make deletable. An abstraction is earned only by ≥ 2 call
-sites that would use it today (deletion rule 3).
+sites that would use it today (deletion rule 3). The deletion test settles suspected
+pass-throughs: imagine the module deleted — if the complexity just vanishes, it was a
+shallow wrapper; only if it reappears across its callers was it earning its keep.
 
 No report scaffolding — these two answers are the output.