Add component lifecycle + retroactive review plan

- docs/reference/component-lifecycle.md: 10-stage quality gate sequence
  (build → stories → audit/critique/harden → fix → polish → present →
  iterate → normalize → preflight → commit)
- docs/reference/retroactive-review-plan.md: Plan to review 30+ existing
  components using condensed process (~3.5 sessions)
- Updated /build-atom, /build-molecule, /build-organism to include
  internal QA stages automatically
- CLAUDE.md: added lifecycle reference as critical rule #8

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

docs/reference/retroactive-review-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# Retroactive Review Plan
+
+Components built before the workflow upgrade (2026-03-27) haven't been through
+the full quality gate lifecycle. This plan reviews them using a lighter process
+focused on catching real issues, not re-polishing what already works.
+
+## Approach
+
+Use the condensed review process from component-lifecycle.md:
+1. `/normalize {tier}` — Scan the tier for cross-component consistency
+2. `/audit {component}` — Score each component (only those scoring < 16/20 need fixes)
+3. Fix P0/P1 issues only
+4. `/preflight` → commit
+
+## Priority Order
+
+Review bottom-up: atoms first (they're the foundation everything builds on),
+then molecules, then organisms. Within each tier, prioritise by usage —
+components used by many others matter more than standalone ones.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Atoms (foundation layer — highest priority)
+
+### Step 1.1 — Normalize all atoms
+Run `/normalize atoms` once to get a cross-component consistency report.
+Expected findings: token access patterns (D031), transition timing, focus
+styles. Fix all issues in a single batch commit.
+
+### Step 1.2 — Audit each atom
+Run `/audit` on each atom. Components already audited in previous sessions have
+scores on record. Focus on those that scored < 16/20 or were never audited.
+
+| Atom | Last Audit Score | Priority |
+|------|-----------------|----------|
+| Button | — (not formally audited) | High (most-used atom) |
+| Typography | — | Medium (display-only) |
+| Input | — | High (forms foundation) |
+| Card | — | High (used by all cards) |
+| Badge | — | Medium (fixed in D031) |
+| Chip | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
+| Switch | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
+| Radio | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
+| IconButton | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
+| Divider | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
+| Link | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
+
+**Estimated effort:** 1 session for normalize + audit of high/medium priority atoms.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Molecules (composition layer)
+
+### Step 2.1 — Normalize all molecules
+Run `/normalize molecules` for cross-component consistency.
+
+### Step 2.2 — Audit + critique priority molecules
+Run `/audit` and `/critique` on molecules with real layout complexity.
+
+| Molecule | Last Scores | Priority |
+|----------|------------|----------|
+| ProviderCard | Critique 33/40 (v2 iteration) | Medium (user-approved) |
+| VenueCard | Critique 33/40 | Medium (user-approved) |
+| SearchBar | Critique 35/40 | Low (high scores already) |
+| ServiceOption | — | Medium (used by ServiceSelector) |
+| AddOnOption | — | Medium (similar pattern to ServiceOption) |
+| StepIndicator | — | Low (display-only) |
+| LineItem | Audit 19/20 | Low (excellent score) |
+| ProviderCardCompact | — | Medium (newer, less reviewed) |
+
+**Estimated effort:** 1 session for normalize + audit of medium priority molecules.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Organisms (page-level compositions)
+
+### Step 3.1 — Normalize all organisms
+Run `/normalize organisms` for cross-component consistency.
+
+### Step 3.2 — Full review of critical organisms
+Organisms are the most complex and user-facing. Run `/audit` + `/critique` +
+`/harden` on each.
+
+| Organism | Last Scores | Priority |
+|----------|------------|----------|
+| Navigation | — | High (site-wide, visible on every page) |
+| Footer | Critique 38/40 | Low (excellent score) |
+| ServiceSelector | — | High (arrangement flow core) |
+| PackageDetail | Audit 19/20 | Low (excellent score) |
+| FuneralFinder V1 | Audit 14/20, Critique 29/40 | Medium (pending production decision) |
+| FuneralFinder V2 | Audit 18/20, Critique 33/40 | Medium (pending production decision) |
+| FuneralFinder V3 | Audit 18/20, Critique 33/40 | Medium (pending production decision) |
+
+**Note on FuneralFinder:** All three versions exist. A production decision (v1 vs v2 vs v3)
+is still pending. Only review the chosen version in depth. The others can be archived or
+retained as alternatives.
+
+**Estimated effort:** 1 session for normalize + audit/critique of Navigation + ServiceSelector.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: Cross-cutting concerns
+
+After individual components are clean:
+1. Run `/adapt` on all organisms + ProviderCard/VenueCard (responsive check)
+2. Run `/typeset` across a representative sample of each tier
+3. Run `/preflight` to verify the full codebase
+4. Commit all fixes
+
+**Estimated effort:** 0.5 session.
+
+---
+
+## Total estimated effort: ~3.5 sessions
+
+| Phase | Focus | Effort |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | Atoms normalize + audit | 1 session |
+| 2 | Molecules normalize + audit | 1 session |
+| 3 | Organisms normalize + audit/critique/harden | 1 session |
+| 4 | Cross-cutting (adapt, typeset, preflight) | 0.5 session |
+
+This can be interleaved with new component work — e.g., review atoms in the
+morning, build a new molecule in the afternoon. The review findings often
+improve the patterns used in new components.
+
+---
+
+## Decision needed from user
+
+Before starting, confirm:
+1. **FuneralFinder version** — Which version (v1/v2/v3) should get the full
+   review? The others can be lightly maintained or archived.
+2. **Depth vs speed** — Do we fix all P2 issues too, or strictly P0/P1 only?
+   P0/P1 only is faster and doesn't risk changing things that already work.
+3. **Interleave with new work** — Review in dedicated sessions, or mix with
+   building remaining components (FormField, ArrangementForm, PricingTable)?