chore(skills): pr-review — use Write+printf for comment files, foreground-only tea-comment

Also adds Q-097 (strip corp "What They Don't Talk About" sections).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md

@@ -268,16 +268,27 @@ After presenting results to the user, post the review as a PR comment.
 Note: `tea pr reject` does not work on your own PRs. Use `tea comment` instead.
 
 Post using the `tea-comment` wrapper (handles temp files and cleanup).
-Write the review to a temp file first, then pass via `@filepath` syntax:
 
-```bash
-# Write review to file, then post — avoids $() in the command which breaks permissions
-cat > /tmp/pr-review-<NUMBER>.md << 'EOF'
-...review content...
-EOF
+**Two rules:**
+1. **Use the Write tool** for the file content (no permission prompt, no
+   heredoc parsing issues with markdown tables/pipes). Then call
+   `tooling/tea-comment` in a separate short Bash call.
+2. **Run `tooling/tea-comment` in the FOREGROUND, never with
+   `run_in_background`.** The background execution path silently fails —
+   the comment never reaches Gitea and the team never sees the review.
+   Sprint 38 lost an entire review round this way. Always foreground.
+
+```
+# Step 1: Use the Write tool to create the file
+Write({ file_path: "/tmp/pr-review-<NUMBER>.md", content: "..." })
+
+# Step 2: Post via short Bash call (foreground)
 tooling/tea-comment <PR_NUMBER> @/tmp/pr-review-<NUMBER>.md
 ```
 
+Do NOT use `cat << 'EOF'` heredocs for review content — they create
+massive permission prompts that are slow to render and often get stuck.
+
 ## 7. Merging approved PRs
 
 `tea pr merge` fails (405) when branches have conflicts with main. Merge

decisions/questions-content.md

@@ -238,4 +238,15 @@ Narrative, NPCs, dialogue, templates, setting, worldbuilding, and storyteller me
 
 ---
 
-*25 questions (11 resolved, 2 partially resolved, 12 open). Last updated: 2026-04-21 (Q-095 resolved — D-193 Lattice Commission)*
+---
+
+### Q-097: Strip "What They Don't Talk About" from corporation pages
+- **Status:** Open
+- **Question:** Should we remove "What They Don't Talk About" sections from corporation wiki pages? Currently 116 of 156 corp pages have this section. The argument: cultural silences are a population/system-level phenomenon — people carry them because of where they live, not who employs them. A mining company doesn't develop its own cultural ethos; its workers inherit the system's silences. Corporate secrecy (trade secrets, undisclosed contracts) is just business, not anthropology. Gate Corporation may be an exception as a civilization-scale institution, but Arbour Aggregates and Rush Mining are regional businesses whose people are system-people first.
+- **Context:** Pattern originated from Gate Corporation (which plausibly operates at civilization scale) and was applied uniformly to all corp pages during bulk authoring. Now reinforcing itself — reviewers flag its *absence* as a defect (Sprint 38 PR #140 round 1). If left in place, every new corp page will copy the pattern. Counter-argument: some corporate silences *are* distinct from system silences (e.g., a pharmaceutical company's certification history vs. the system's general cultural memory). The question is whether that justifies a dedicated section or whether it belongs inline in Operations/Market Position.
+- **Affects:** 116 wiki/corporations/*.md files, corp page template, reviewer expectations
+- **Source:** Sprint 38 PR #140 review discussion (2026-05-02)
+
+---
+
+*26 questions (11 resolved, 2 partially resolved, 13 open). Last updated: 2026-05-02 (Q-097 corp silences)*