feat(quick-dev): add Review Trail generation to step 5

Step 5 now builds a concern-ordered trail of clickable vscode://file/
links with brief framing and appends it to the spec before committing.
Stops are sequenced by concern (not by file), lead with the entry point,
and use ≤15-word framing focused on design rationale. Single-concern
trails omit grouping labels. The trail is a standalone review artifact
useful without any skill.

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

src/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/bmad-quick-dev-new-preview/step-05-present.md

@@ -10,8 +10,51 @@
 
 ## INSTRUCTIONS
 
-1. Change `{spec_file}` status to `done` in the frontmatter.
-2. If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the spec title.
-3. Display summary of your work to the user, including the commit hash if one was created. Advise on how to review the changes. Offer to push and/or create a pull request.
+### Generate Suggested Review Order
+
+Determine what changed:
+
+- **Plan-code-review:** Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter and construct the diff of all changes since that commit.
+- **One-shot:** No baseline exists. Use the files you created or modified during implementation.
+
+**Plan-code-review:** Append the review order as a `## Suggested Review Order` section to `{spec_file}` **after the last existing section**. Do not modify the Code Map.
+
+**One-shot:** Display the review order directly in conversation output.
+
+Build the trail as an ordered sequence of **stops** — clickable `path:line` references with brief framing — optimized for a human reviewer reading top-down to understand the change:
+
+1. **Order by concern, not by file.** Group stops by the conceptual concern they address (e.g., "validation logic", "schema change", "UI binding"). A single file may appear under multiple concerns.
+2. **Lead with the entry point** — the single highest-leverage file:line a reviewer should look at first to grasp the design intent.
+3. **Inside each concern**, order stops from most important / architecturally interesting to supporting. Lightly bias toward higher-risk or boundary-crossing stops.
+4. **End with peripherals** — tests, config, types, and other supporting changes come last.
+5. **Every code reference is a clickable `vscode://file/` link.** Format each stop as a markdown link: `[short-name:line](vscode://file/absolute/path:line:1)`. Use the file's basename (or shortest unambiguous suffix) as the link text.
+6. **Each stop gets one ultra-concise line of framing** (≤15 words) — why this approach was chosen here and what it achieves in the context of the change. No paragraphs.
+
+Format each stop as framing first, link on the next indented line:
+
+```markdown
+## Suggested Review Order
+
+**{Concern name}**
+
+- {one-line framing}
+  [`file.ts:42`](vscode://file/absolute/path/to/file.ts:42:1)
+
+- {one-line framing}
+  [`other.ts:17`](vscode://file/absolute/path/to/other.ts:17:1)
+
+**{Next concern}**
+
+- {one-line framing}
+  [`file.ts:88`](vscode://file/absolute/path/to/file.ts:88:1)
+```
+
+When there is only one concern, omit the bold label — just list the stops directly.
+
+### Commit and Present
+
+1. **Plan-code-review:** Change `{spec_file}` status to `done` in the frontmatter.
+2. If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the spec title (plan-code-review) or the intent (one-shot).
+3. Display summary of your work to the user, including the commit hash if one was created. Advise on how to review the changes — for plan-code-review, mention that `{spec_file}` now contains a Suggested Review Order. Offer to push and/or create a pull request.
 
 Workflow complete.