chore: add shared agent skills

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

.agents/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+name: tdd
+description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development
+
+TDD is the red → green loop. This skill is the reference that makes that loop produce tests worth keeping: what a good test is, where tests go, the anti-patterns, and the rules of the loop. Every section applies on every cycle — consult them before and during the loop, not after.
+
+When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+## What a good test is
+
+Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. A good test reads like a specification — "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists — and survives refactors because it doesn't care about internal structure.
+
+See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
+
+## Seams — where tests go
+
+A **seam** is the public boundary you test at: the interface where you observe behavior without reaching inside. Tests live at seams, never against internals.
+
+**Test only at pre-agreed seams.** Before writing any test, write down the seams under test and confirm them with the user. No test is written at an unconfirmed seam. You can't test everything — agreeing the seams up front is how testing effort lands on the critical paths and complex logic instead of every edge case.
+
+Ask: "What's the public interface, and which seams should we test?"
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- **Implementation-coupled** — mocks internal collaborators, tests private methods, or verifies through a side channel (querying the database instead of using the interface). The tell: the test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed.
+- **Tautological** — the assertion recomputes the expected value the way the code does (`expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, a snapshot derived by hand the same way, a constant asserted equal to itself), so it passes by construction and can never disagree with the code. Expected values must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
+- **Horizontal slicing** — writing all tests first, then all implementation. Bulk tests verify _imagined_ behavior: you test the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior, the tests go insensitive to real changes, and you commit to test structure before understanding the implementation. Work in **vertical slices** instead — one test → one implementation → repeat, each test a **tracer bullet** that responds to what the last cycle taught you.
+
+## Rules of the loop
+
+- **Red before green.** Write the failing test first, then only enough code to pass it. Don't anticipate future tests or add speculative features.
+- **One slice at a time.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation per cycle.
+- **Refactoring is not part of the loop.** It belongs to the review stage (see the `code-review` skill), not the red → green implementation cycle.

.agents/skills/tdd/mocking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# When to Mock
+
+Mock at **system boundaries** only:
+
+- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
+- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
+- Time/randomness
+- File system (sometimes)
+
+Don't mock:
+
+- Your own classes/modules
+- Internal collaborators
+- Anything you control
+
+## Designing for Mockability
+
+At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
+
+**1. Use dependency injection**
+
+Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
+
+```typescript
+// Easy to mock
+function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
+  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
+}
+
+// Hard to mock
+function processPayment(order) {
+  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
+  return client.charge(order.total);
+}
+```
+
+**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
+
+Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
+const api = {
+  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
+  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
+  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
+};
+
+// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
+const api = {
+  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
+};
+```
+
+The SDK approach means:
+- Each mock returns one specific shape
+- No conditional logic in test setup
+- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
+- Type safety per endpoint

.agents/skills/tdd/tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Good and Bad Tests
+
+## Good Tests
+
+**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
+test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
+  const cart = createCart();
+  cart.add(product);
+  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
+  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
+});
+```
+
+Characteristics:
+
+- Tests behavior users/callers care about
+- Uses public API only
+- Survives internal refactors
+- Describes WHAT, not HOW
+- One logical assertion per test
+
+## Bad Tests
+
+**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Tests implementation details
+test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
+  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
+  await checkout(cart, payment);
+  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
+});
+```
+
+Red flags:
+
+- Mocking internal collaborators
+- Testing private methods
+- Asserting on call counts/order
+- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
+- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
+- Verifying through external means instead of interface
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
+test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
+  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
+  expect(row).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// GOOD: Verifies through interface
+test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
+  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
+  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
+});
+```
+
+**Tautological tests**: Expected value restates the implementation, so the test passes by construction.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Expected value is recomputed the way the code computes it
+test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
+  const items = [{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }];
+  const expected = items.reduce((sum, i) => sum + i.price, 0);
+  expect(calculateTotal(items)).toBe(expected);
+});
+
+// GOOD: Expected value is an independent, known literal
+test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
+  expect(calculateTotal([{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }])).toBe(15);
+});
+```