Add a bounded three-provider council consultation and a one-line-per-event PR watcher #128

Two ideas from t3dotgg/tstack (MIT) would strengthen the setup without replacing the review workflow.

1. Council consultation for disputed decisions

council asks one strong model from each of three providers, in parallel and read-only, then summarizes their findings, disagreements and recommended next steps. It reports a missing provider instead of substituting one.

Our review workflow is the merge gate: blocking findings with adversarial verification and a round cap. A council fits a different place: a disputed design, a contested root-cause claim, or a decision about to go to the user. It would be optional and bounded, not another gate.

• A council workflow (or a mode of an existing one) that runs three providers in parallel on one question and synthesizes agreement, disagreement and a recommendation, citing evidence.
• It is bounded: one round by default, with an explicit cap, and it reports unavailable providers.
• Its result can be passed as the review field of a user question.
• No scores or review notes in PR descriptions; they go in PR comments, as now.

2. PR watcher with one line per real event

babysit-pr watches a PR's checks, reviews and comments together, prints one line per real event, remembers what it has seen across restarts, and allows one watcher per PR.

• A Node watcher (no Python) that wakes the session on a check conclusion, a new review or a new comment for an immutable head SHA, deduplicating across restarts.
• It refuses a second watcher for the same PR and SHA.
• It keeps the existing rules: all checks green before merge, and no reruns except diagnosed infrastructure failures.

Copied code or text carries the MIT notice; a fresh implementation of the design needs none.