diff --git a/.opencode/skills/pre-publish-review/SKILL.md b/.opencode/skills/pre-publish-review/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..25a84e76f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.opencode/skills/pre-publish-review/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,407 @@
+---
+name: pre-publish-review
+description: "Nuclear-grade 16-agent pre-publish release gate. Runs /get-unpublished-changes to detect all changes since last npm release, spawns up to 10 ultrabrain agents for deep per-change analysis, invokes /review-work (5 agents) for holistic review, and 1 oracle for overall release synthesis. Use before EVERY npm publish. Triggers: 'pre-publish review', 'review before publish', 'release review', 'pre-release review', 'ready to publish?', 'can I publish?', 'pre-publish', 'safe to publish', 'publishing review', 'pre-publish check'."
+---
+
+# Pre-Publish Review — 16-Agent Release Gate
+
+Three-layer review before publishing to npm. Every layer covers a different angle — together they catch what no single reviewer could.
+
+| Layer | Agents | Type | What They Check |
+|-------|--------|------|-----------------|
+| Per-Change Deep Dive | up to 10 | ultrabrain | Each logical change group individually — correctness, edge cases, pattern adherence |
+| Holistic Review | 5 | review-work | Goal compliance, QA execution, code quality, security, context mining across full changeset |
+| Release Synthesis | 1 | oracle | Overall release readiness, version bump, breaking changes, deployment risk |
+
+---
+
+## Phase 0: Detect Unpublished Changes
+
+Run `/get-unpublished-changes` FIRST. This is the single source of truth for what changed.
+
+```
+skill(name="get-unpublished-changes")
+```
+
+This command automatically:
+- Detects published npm version vs local version
+- Lists all commits since last release
+- Reads actual diffs (not just commit messages) to describe REAL changes
+- Groups changes by type (feat/fix/refactor/docs) with scope
+- Identifies breaking changes
+- Recommends version bump (patch/minor/major)
+
+**Save the full output** — it feeds directly into Phase 1 grouping and all agent prompts.
+
+Then capture raw data needed by agent prompts:
+
+```bash
+# Extract versions (already in /get-unpublished-changes output)
+PUBLISHED=$(npm view oh-my-opencode version 2>/dev/null || echo "not published")
+LOCAL=$(node -p "require('./package.json').version" 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
+
+# Raw data for agents (diffs, file lists)
+COMMITS=$(git log "v${PUBLISHED}"..HEAD --oneline 2>/dev/null || echo "no commits")
+COMMIT_COUNT=$(echo "$COMMITS" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+DIFF_STAT=$(git diff "v${PUBLISHED}"..HEAD --stat 2>/dev/null || echo "no diff")
+CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff --name-only "v${PUBLISHED}"..HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo "none")
+FILE_COUNT=$(echo "$CHANGED_FILES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+```
+
+If `PUBLISHED` is "not published", this is a first release — use the full git history instead.
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Parse Changes into Groups
+
+Use the `/get-unpublished-changes` output as the starting point — it already groups by scope and type.
+
+**Grouping strategy:**
+1. Start from the `/get-unpublished-changes` analysis which already categorizes by feat/fix/refactor/docs with scope
+2. Further split by **module/area** — changes touching the same module or feature area belong together
+3. Target **up to 10 groups**. If fewer than 10 commits, each commit is its own group. If more than 10 logical areas, merge the smallest groups.
+4. For each group, extract:
+   - **Group name**: Short descriptive label (e.g., "agent-model-resolution", "hook-system-refactor")
+   - **Commits**: List of commit hashes and messages
+   - **Files**: Changed files in this group
+   - **Diff**: The relevant portion of the full diff (`git diff v${PUBLISHED}..HEAD -- {group files}`)
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Spawn All Agents
+
+Launch ALL agents in a single turn. Every agent uses `run_in_background=true`. No sequential launches.
+
+### Layer 1: Ultrabrain Per-Change Analysis (up to 10)
+
+For each change group, spawn one ultrabrain agent. Each gets only its portion of the diff — not the full changeset.
+
+```
+task(
+  category="ultrabrain",
+  run_in_background=true,
+  load_skills=[],
+  description="Deep analysis: {GROUP_NAME}",
+  prompt="""
+<review_type>PER-CHANGE DEEP ANALYSIS</review_type>
+<change_group>{GROUP_NAME}</change_group>
+
+<project>oh-my-opencode (npm package)</project>
+<published_version>{PUBLISHED}</published_version>
+<target_version>{LOCAL}</target_version>
+
+<commits>
+{GROUP_COMMITS — hash and message for each commit in this group}
+</commits>
+
+<changed_files>
+{GROUP_FILES — files changed in this group}
+</changed_files>
+
+<diff>
+{GROUP_DIFF — only the diff for this group's files}
+</diff>
+
+<file_contents>
+{Read and include full content of each changed file in this group}
+</file_contents>
+
+You are reviewing a specific subset of changes heading into an npm release. Focus exclusively on THIS change group. Other groups are reviewed by parallel agents.
+
+ANALYSIS CHECKLIST:
+
+1. **Intent Clarity**: What is this change trying to do? Is the intent clear from the code and commit messages? If you have to guess, that's a finding.
+
+2. **Correctness**: Trace through the logic for 3+ scenarios. Does the code actually do what it claims? Off-by-one errors, null handling, async edge cases, resource cleanup.
+
+3. **Breaking Changes**: Does this change alter any public API, config format, CLI behavior, or hook contract? If yes, is it backward compatible? Would existing users be surprised?
+
+4. **Pattern Adherence**: Does the new code follow the established patterns visible in the existing file contents? New patterns where old ones exist = finding.
+
+5. **Edge Cases**: What inputs or conditions would break this? Empty arrays, undefined values, concurrent calls, very large inputs, missing config fields.
+
+6. **Error Handling**: Are errors properly caught and propagated? No empty catch blocks? No swallowed promises?
+
+7. **Type Safety**: Any `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`? Loose typing where strict is possible?
+
+8. **Test Coverage**: Are the behavioral changes covered by tests? Are the tests meaningful or just coverage padding?
+
+9. **Side Effects**: Could this change break something in a different module? Check imports and exports — who depends on what changed?
+
+10. **Release Risk**: On a scale of SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY — how confident are you this change won't cause issues in production?
+
+OUTPUT FORMAT:
+<group_name>{GROUP_NAME}</group_name>
+<verdict>PASS or FAIL</verdict>
+<risk>SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY</risk>
+<summary>2-3 sentence assessment of this change group</summary>
+<has_breaking_changes>YES or NO</has_breaking_changes>
+<breaking_change_details>If YES, describe what breaks and for whom</breaking_change_details>
+<findings>
+  For each finding:
+  - [CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR] Category: Description
+  - File: path (line range)
+  - Evidence: specific code reference
+  - Suggestion: how to fix
+</findings>
+<blocking_issues>Issues that MUST be fixed before publish. Empty if PASS.</blocking_issues>
+""")
+```
+
+### Layer 2: Holistic Review via /review-work (5 agents)
+
+Spawn a sub-agent that loads the `/review-work` skill. The review-work skill internally launches 5 parallel agents: Oracle (goal verification), unspecified-high (QA execution), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (context mining). All 5 must pass for the review to pass.
+
+```
+task(
+  category="unspecified-high",
+  run_in_background=true,
+  load_skills=["review-work"],
+  description="Run /review-work on all unpublished changes",
+  prompt="""
+Run /review-work on the unpublished changes between v{PUBLISHED} and HEAD.
+
+GOAL: Review all changes heading into npm publish of oh-my-opencode. These changes span {COMMIT_COUNT} commits across {FILE_COUNT} files.
+
+CONSTRAINTS:
+- This is a plugin published to npm — public API stability matters
+- TypeScript strict mode, Bun runtime
+- No `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`
+- Factory pattern (createXXX) for tools, hooks, agents
+- kebab-case files, barrel exports, no catch-all files
+
+BACKGROUND: Pre-publish review of oh-my-opencode, an OpenCode plugin with 1268 TypeScript files, 160k LOC. Changes since v{PUBLISHED} are about to be published.
+
+The diff base is: git diff v{PUBLISHED}..HEAD
+
+Follow the /review-work skill flow exactly — launch all 5 review agents and collect results. Do NOT skip any of the 5 agents.
+""")
+```
+
+### Layer 3: Oracle Release Synthesis (1 agent)
+
+The oracle gets the full picture — all commits, full diff stat, and changed file list. It provides the final release readiness assessment.
+
+```
+task(
+  subagent_type="oracle",
+  run_in_background=true,
+  load_skills=[],
+  description="Oracle: overall release synthesis and version bump recommendation",
+  prompt="""
+<review_type>RELEASE SYNTHESIS — OVERALL ASSESSMENT</review_type>
+
+<project>oh-my-opencode (npm package)</project>
+<published_version>{PUBLISHED}</published_version>
+<local_version>{LOCAL}</local_version>
+
+<all_commits>
+{ALL COMMITS since published version — hash, message, author, date}
+</all_commits>
+
+<diff_stat>
+{DIFF_STAT — files changed, insertions, deletions}
+</diff_stat>
+
+<changed_files>
+{CHANGED_FILES — full list of modified file paths}
+</changed_files>
+
+<full_diff>
+{FULL_DIFF — the complete git diff between published version and HEAD}
+</full_diff>
+
+<file_contents>
+{Read and include full content of KEY changed files — focus on public API surfaces, config schemas, agent definitions, hook registrations, tool registrations}
+</file_contents>
+
+You are the final gate before an npm publish. 10 ultrabrain agents are reviewing individual changes and 5 review-work agents are doing holistic review. Your job is the bird's-eye view that those focused reviews might miss.
+
+SYNTHESIS CHECKLIST:
+
+1. **Release Coherence**: Do these changes tell a coherent story? Or is this a grab-bag of unrelated changes that should be split into multiple releases?
+
+2. **Version Bump**: Based on semver:
+   - PATCH: Bug fixes only, no behavior changes
+   - MINOR: New features, backward-compatible changes
+   - MAJOR: Breaking changes to public API, config format, or behavior
+   Recommend the correct bump with specific justification.
+
+3. **Breaking Changes Audit**: Exhaustively list every change that could break existing users. Check:
+   - Config schema changes (new required fields, removed fields, renamed fields)
+   - Agent behavior changes (different prompts, different model routing)
+   - Hook contract changes (new parameters, removed hooks, renamed hooks)
+   - Tool interface changes (new required params, different return types)
+   - CLI changes (new commands, changed flags, different output)
+   - Skill format changes (SKILL.md schema changes)
+
+4. **Migration Requirements**: If there are breaking changes, what migration steps do users need? Is there auto-migration in place?
+
+5. **Dependency Changes**: New dependencies added? Dependencies removed? Version bumps? Any supply chain risk?
+
+6. **Changelog Draft**: Write a draft changelog entry grouped by:
+   - feat: New features
+   - fix: Bug fixes
+   - refactor: Internal changes (no user impact)
+   - breaking: Breaking changes with migration instructions
+   - docs: Documentation changes
+
+7. **Deployment Risk Assessment**:
+   - SAFE: Routine changes, well-tested, low risk
+   - CAUTION: Significant changes but manageable risk
+   - RISKY: Large surface area changes, insufficient testing, or breaking changes without migration
+   - BLOCK: Critical issues found, do NOT publish
+
+8. **Post-Publish Monitoring**: What should be monitored after publish? Error rates, specific features, user feedback channels.
+
+OUTPUT FORMAT:
+<verdict>SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY / BLOCK</verdict>
+<recommended_version_bump>PATCH / MINOR / MAJOR</recommended_version_bump>
+<version_bump_justification>Why this bump level</version_bump_justification>
+<release_coherence>Assessment of whether changes belong in one release</release_coherence>
+<breaking_changes>
+  Exhaustive list, or "None" if none.
+  For each:
+  - What changed
+  - Who is affected
+  - Migration steps
+</breaking_changes>
+<changelog_draft>
+  Ready-to-use changelog entry
+</changelog_draft>
+<deployment_risk>
+  Overall risk assessment with specific concerns
+</deployment_risk>
+<monitoring_recommendations>
+  What to watch after publish
+</monitoring_recommendations>
+<blocking_issues>Issues that MUST be fixed before publish. Empty if SAFE.</blocking_issues>
+""")
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Collect Results
+
+As agents complete (system notifications), collect via `background_output(task_id="...")`.
+
+Track completion in a table:
+
+| # | Agent | Type | Status | Verdict |
+|---|-------|------|--------|---------|
+| 1-10 | Ultrabrain: {group_name} | ultrabrain | pending | — |
+| 11 | Review-Work Coordinator | unspecified-high | pending | — |
+| 12 | Release Synthesis Oracle | oracle | pending | — |
+
+Do NOT deliver the final report until ALL agents have completed.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: Final Verdict
+
+<verdict_logic>
+
+**BLOCK** if:
+- Oracle verdict is BLOCK
+- Any ultrabrain found CRITICAL blocking issues
+- Review-work failed on any MAIN agent
+
+**RISKY** if:
+- Oracle verdict is RISKY
+- Multiple ultrabrains returned CAUTION or FAIL
+- Review-work passed but with significant findings
+
+**CAUTION** if:
+- Oracle verdict is CAUTION
+- A few ultrabrains flagged minor issues
+- Review-work passed cleanly
+
+**SAFE** if:
+- Oracle verdict is SAFE
+- All ultrabrains passed
+- Review-work passed
+
+</verdict_logic>
+
+Compile the final report:
+
+```markdown
+# Pre-Publish Review — oh-my-opencode
+
+## Release: v{PUBLISHED} -> v{LOCAL}
+**Commits:** {COMMIT_COUNT} | **Files Changed:** {FILE_COUNT} | **Agents:** {AGENT_COUNT}
+
+---
+
+## Overall Verdict: SAFE / CAUTION / RISKY / BLOCK
+
+## Recommended Version Bump: PATCH / MINOR / MAJOR
+{Justification from Oracle}
+
+---
+
+## Per-Change Analysis (Ultrabrains)
+
+| # | Change Group | Verdict | Risk | Breaking? | Blocking Issues |
+|---|-------------|---------|------|-----------|-----------------|
+| 1 | {name} | PASS/FAIL | SAFE/CAUTION/RISKY | YES/NO | {count or "none"} |
+| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Blocking Issues from Per-Change Analysis
+{Aggregated from all ultrabrains — deduplicated}
+
+---
+
+## Holistic Review (Review-Work)
+
+| # | Review Area | Verdict | Confidence |
+|---|------------|---------|------------|
+| 1 | Goal & Constraint Verification | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
+| 2 | QA Execution | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
+| 3 | Code Quality | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
+| 4 | Security | PASS/FAIL | Severity |
+| 5 | Context Mining | PASS/FAIL | HIGH/MED/LOW |
+
+### Blocking Issues from Holistic Review
+{Aggregated from review-work}
+
+---
+
+## Release Synthesis (Oracle)
+
+### Breaking Changes
+{From Oracle — exhaustive list or "None"}
+
+### Changelog Draft
+{From Oracle — ready to use}
+
+### Deployment Risk
+{From Oracle — specific concerns}
+
+### Post-Publish Monitoring
+{From Oracle — what to watch}
+
+---
+
+## All Blocking Issues (Prioritized)
+{Deduplicated, merged from all three layers, ordered by severity}
+
+## Recommendations
+{If BLOCK/RISKY: exactly what to fix, in priority order}
+{If CAUTION: suggestions worth considering before publish}
+{If SAFE: non-blocking improvements for future}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+| Violation | Severity |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Publishing without waiting for all agents | **CRITICAL** |
+| Spawning ultrabrains sequentially instead of in parallel | CRITICAL |
+| Using `run_in_background=false` for any agent | CRITICAL |
+| Skipping the Oracle synthesis | HIGH |
+| Not reading file contents for Oracle (it cannot read files) | HIGH |
+| Grouping all changes into 1-2 ultrabrains instead of distributing | HIGH |
+| Delivering verdict before all agents complete | HIGH |
+| Not including diff in ultrabrain prompts | MAJOR |