Add comprehensive skills, agents, commands collection

- Added 44 external skills from obra/superpowers, ui-ux-pro-max-skill, claude-codex-settings
- Added 8 autonomous agents (commit-creator, pr-creator, pr-reviewer, etc.)
- Added 23 slash commands for Git/GitHub, setup, and plugin development
- Added hooks for code formatting, notifications, and validation
- Added MCP configurations for Azure, GCloud, Supabase, MongoDB, etc.
- Added awesome-openclaw-skills registry (3,002 skills referenced)
- Updated comprehensive README with full documentation

Sources:
- github.com/obra/superpowers (14 skills)
- github.com/nextlevelbuilder/ui-ux-pro-max-skill (1 skill)
- github.com/fcakyon/claude-codex-settings (29 skills, 8 agents, 23 commands)
- github.com/VoltAgent/awesome-openclaw-skills (registry)
- skills.sh (reference)
- buildwithclaude.com (reference)

skills/external/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
+  prompt: |
+    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
+
+    ## What Was Requested
+
+    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]
+
+    ## What Implementer Claims They Built
+
+    [From implementer's report]
+
+    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
+
+    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
+    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
+
+    **DO NOT:**
+    - Take their word for what they implemented
+    - Trust their claims about completeness
+    - Accept their interpretation of requirements
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Read the actual code they wrote
+    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
+    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
+    - Look for extra features they didn't mention
+
+    ## Your Job
+
+    Read the implementation code and verify:
+
+    **Missing requirements:**
+    - Did they implement everything that was requested?
+    - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
+    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
+
+    **Extra/unneeded work:**
+    - Did they build things that weren't requested?
+    - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
+    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?
+
+    **Misunderstandings:**
+    - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
+    - Did they solve the wrong problem?
+    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?
+
+    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**
+
+    Report:
+    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
+    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
+```