Always request adversarial, evidence-based correctness reviews for infra/dependency PRs

When the user submits a dependency-bump or pnpm-override PR for review, they explicitly require an adversarial, evidence-based correctness review — read-only, skeptical, scoped strictly to real bugs, supply-chain issues, and resolution correctness. Style and cosmetics are out of scope. Every claim must be traceable to actual evidence (lockfile, source code, registry metadata). Prior inline review comments (e.g., from Seer) are MUST-VERIFY starting points, not ground truth. The user consistently scopes dep reviews this way across sessions and expects the assistant to challenge open-ended ranges, version ceilings, transitive resolution side effects, and breaking API changes.