format: apply repo prettier (3.8.1) to the folded skills tree

963 markdown files reformatted with the repository's pinned prettier so
pnpm format:check covers the folded tree like every other repo file.

The formatter's embedded-language pass also normalized code fences
(TS semicolons, closed HTML tags in examples, lowercased CSS hex colors,
one renumbered list that skipped an index). Alphanumeric token deltas vs
the fold commit were audited file-by-file; all are formatter-equivalent
markup normalizations plus the four sanitized skills.

packages/mosaic/framework/skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.
 
 **Your task:**
+
 1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
 2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
 3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
@@ -30,6 +31,7 @@ git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 ## Review Checklist
 
 **Code Quality:**
+
 - Clean separation of concerns?
 - Proper error handling?
 - Type safety (if applicable)?
@@ -37,24 +39,28 @@ git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 - Edge cases handled?
 
 **Architecture:**
+
 - Sound design decisions?
 - Scalability considerations?
 - Performance implications?
 - Security concerns?
 
 **Testing:**
+
 - Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
 - Edge cases covered?
 - Integration tests where needed?
 - All tests passing?
 
 **Requirements:**
+
 - All plan requirements met?
 - Implementation matches spec?
 - No scope creep?
 - Breaking changes documented?
 
 **Production Readiness:**
+
 - Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
 - Backward compatibility considered?
 - Documentation complete?
@@ -63,26 +69,32 @@ git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 ## Output Format
 
 ### Strengths
+
 [What's well done? Be specific.]
 
 ### Issues
 
 #### Critical (Must Fix)
+
 [Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
 
 #### Important (Should Fix)
+
 [Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
 
 #### Minor (Nice to Have)
+
 [Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]
 
 **For each issue:**
+
 - File:line reference
 - What's wrong
 - Why it matters
 - How to fix (if not obvious)
 
 ### Recommendations
+
 [Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
 
 ### Assessment
@@ -94,6 +106,7 @@ git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 ## Critical Rules
 
 **DO:**
+
 - Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
 - Be specific (file:line, not vague)
 - Explain WHY issues matter
@@ -101,6 +114,7 @@ git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 - Give clear verdict
 
 **DON'T:**
+
 - Say "looks good" without checking
 - Mark nitpicks as Critical
 - Give feedback on code you didn't review