docs: link first use of AI Coding Dictionary terms

Every docs page now links the first occurrence of each AI Coding
Dictionary term to its entry on aihero.dev. 202 links across 25 pages,
one link per term per page. Prose is unchanged — only links added.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/engineering/code-review.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ## What it does
 
-`code-review` reviews the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point you name — a commit, a branch, a tag, `main`, `HEAD~5` — along two axes. **Standards** asks whether the code follows how this repo writes code. **Spec** asks whether the code does what the originating issue or spec asked for. Each axis runs in its own sub-agent so neither sees the other's reasoning.
+`code-review` reviews the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point you name — a commit, a branch, a tag, `main`, `HEAD~5` — along two axes. **Standards** asks whether the code follows how this repo writes code. **Spec** asks whether the code does what the originating issue or [spec](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/spec) asked for. Each axis runs in its own [sub-agent](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/subagent) so neither sees the other's reasoning.
 
-The two axes are never merged and never re-ranked. The report ends with a worst issue *per axis* and refuses to name a single winner across them, because a change can pass one axis and fail the other: code that follows every convention while implementing the wrong thing passes Standards and fails Spec; code that does exactly what the ticket asked while breaking the repo's conventions does the reverse. A blended verdict lets the passing axis hide the failing one.
+The two axes are never merged and never re-ranked. The report ends with a worst issue *per axis* and refuses to name a single winner across them, because a change can pass one axis and fail the other: code that follows every convention while implementing the wrong thing passes Standards and fails Spec; code that does exactly what the [ticket](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/ticket) asked while breaking the repo's conventions does the reverse. A blended verdict lets the passing axis hide the failing one.
 
 ## When to reach for it
 
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Step 1 depends on `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`, which [setup-matt-pocock-skill
 | Reports | Documented breaches (can be hard), and smells (always judgement calls) | Missing or partial requirements, scope creep, requirements implemented wrongly |
 | Every finding cites | The standards file and the rule, or the named smell plus the hunk | The line of the spec |
 
-A generic review skill that does not know your standards is the thing this design is trying to avoid — it flags what is deliberate in your codebase and misses the invariants your codebase actually depends on. So the repo's own documentation is the primary source on the Standards axis, and **the repo always overrides**.
+A generic review skill that does not know your standards is the thing this design is trying to avoid — it flags what is deliberate in your codebase and misses the invariants your codebase actually depends on. So the repo's own documentation is the [primary source](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/primary-source) on the Standards axis, and **the repo always overrides**.
 
 The **smell baseline** is the floor underneath it: twelve Fowler code smells from _Refactoring_ ch.3 — Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession, Repeated Switches, Shotgun Surgery, Divergent Change, Speculative Generality, Message Chains, Middle Man, Refused Bequest. Each is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation, and each is stated as *what it is* → *how to fix*, so a finding arrives with a move attached rather than a complaint. Anything your linter already enforces is skipped by both axes.
 
@@ -49,13 +49,13 @@ The **smell baseline** is the floor underneath it: twelve Fowler code smells fro
 
 **It collides with Claude Code's own `/code-review`. What do I do?**
 
-This is the most reported problem with the skill, and it is not fixed. Claude Code ships its own `/code-review`, which does something different — it hunts bugs in the diff, where this one checks spec compliance and repo standards. Installing this library means one of them wins, and which one wins depends on how you installed. Via the plugin marketplace, everything is aliased under a `mattpocock-skills:` prefix and the built-in becomes hard to reach at the unqualified name; via a plain skills install, the local file wins and this skill shadows the built-in. Matt's own answer is that he removes Claude Code's built-in skills entirely — "Huge context saving and means I don't need to worry about this. I consider the shadowing issue a CC harness bug, I should be free to name my skills whatever." His advice to anyone hitting it has been to rename his copy locally. Editing the frontmatter or renaming the directory gets undone by `npx skills update`; the durable workaround reported by users is to fork the skill to a new name and drop `code-review` from the managed set, keeping a note of the commit you forked from so you can re-sync by hand.
+This is the most reported problem with the skill, and it is not fixed. Claude Code ships its own `/code-review`, which does something different — it hunts bugs in the diff, where this one checks spec compliance and repo standards. Installing this library means one of them wins, and which one wins depends on how you installed. Via the plugin marketplace, everything is aliased under a `mattpocock-skills:` prefix and the built-in becomes hard to reach at the unqualified name; via a plain skills install, the local file wins and this skill shadows the built-in. Matt's own answer is that he removes Claude Code's built-in skills entirely — "Huge [context](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/context) saving and means I don't need to worry about this. I consider the shadowing issue a CC [harness](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/harness) bug, I should be free to name my skills whatever." His advice to anyone hitting it has been to rename his copy locally. Editing the frontmatter or renaming the directory gets undone by `npx skills update`; the durable workaround reported by users is to fork the skill to a new name and drop `code-review` from the managed set, keeping a note of the commit you forked from so you can re-sync by hand.
 
 **Its sub-agents keep invoking `/code-review` again and spawn more agents.**
 
 Known open bug, reproduced by several people and in more than one harness. The Standards and Spec prompts do not forbid delegation, so a sub-agent can rediscover the skill and fan out again — one report reached 50-plus agents. The fix people have applied on forks is one line appended to both sub-agent briefs: "Do not invoke `/code-review` or spawn additional agents — perform this review directly." Some prefer to handle it at the harness level so every skill inherits the guard. Neither is in the shipped skill yet. If you run this unattended, watch the agent count.
 
-**Should I run it in the same session that wrote the code?**
+**Should I run it in the same [session](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/session) that wrote the code?**
 
 Prefer a fresh one. As one reader put it: "Same context reviewing itself isn't review, it's confirmation bias with a slash command." The reviewing agent in the authoring session holds every assumption that shaped the code, which is exactly the context an independent reviewer would not have. This is also why people ask for [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement) without its built-in review step — it runs the review inside the session that just wrote the diff. Invoking `/code-review` yourself from a clean session is the honest version.