Fix contradictions and dead content across command files

[larnsce]

Problem

An analysis of the repo found concrete contradictions and dead content that produce inconsistent review behavior today, independent of any refactor:

• commands/review-issue.md (line ~61) calls washr::compile_citation(), which does not exist. CLAUDE.md and commands/review-package.md correctly use washr::update_citation().
• The License: CC BY 4.0 checklist item exists in CLAUDE.md and review-issue.md but is missing from the issue body template in review-package.md, so the created metadata issue lacks the license check.
• commands/README.md says "Work on specific issue (1-5)" and review-package-slash-command.md says "I'll create 5 GitHub issues"; the actual workflow has 4 issues (metadata, data, docs, tests).
• commands/review-status.md uses handlebars syntax ({{#if metadata-closed}}) that never executes; there is no template engine.
• commands/review-package-slash-command.md is a legacy duplicate of review-package.md from an earlier iteration and is referenced by nothing.

Tasks

• Replace washr::compile_citation() with washr::update_citation() in review-issue.md
• Add the CC BY 4.0 license item to the metadata issue template in review-package.md
• Correct "issues 1-5" and "5 issues" references to the 4-issue workflow
• Remove or replace the non-executing handlebars blocks in review-status.md
• Delete review-package-slash-command.md

These are quick, self-contained fixes and a prerequisite for the checklist consolidation (see the single-source-of-truth issue).

[larnsce]

All five tasks implemented on dev in a5c0cc4: compile_citation() typo fixed, CC BY 4.0 and CITATION.cff items added to the metadata template, 5-issue references corrected, review-status.md rewritten without handlebars, review-package-slash-command.md deleted. Ready to close when dev merges.

[larnsce]

It looks like this skill has a dependency on washr. What is the reason?

[larnsce]

The washr dependency is inherited from the openwashdata publishing workflow, not introduced by this refactor; the pre-refactor CLAUDE.md and command files already required it. Two reasons it stays in the standard:

1. openwashdata packages are created from the washr template, so template compliance is part of the metadata review.
2. The review requires DESCRIPTION, CITATION.cff, and inst/CITATION to agree. washr::update_description() and washr::update_citation() are the org's canonical way to keep that triplet in sync; hand-editing three citation files is exactly the kind of drift the fixture plants as defect D2.

Note the dependency sits in the reviewer's R environment, not in the skills themselves (the skills just instruct running it in the package under review). Made this explicit in the README requirements in c568fbb. If you ever want to drop washr, the checklist items would need a replacement mechanism for citation sync; that would be a standard change with a version bump.

[larnsce]

Delivered: implemented on dev via PR #14 (merged 2026-07-08), validated by the first production review (openwashdata/fslogisticskampala v1.0.0), and released as review standard v1.0.0 via PR #26.