feat: update CLAUDE.md and add skills

.claude/rules/common/agents.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Agent Orchestration
+
+## Available Agents
+
+Located in `~/.claude/agents/`:
+
+| Agent | Purpose | When to Use |
+|-------|---------|-------------|
+| planner | Implementation planning | Complex features, refactoring |
+| architect | System design | Architectural decisions |
+| tdd-guide | Test-driven development | New features, bug fixes |
+| code-reviewer | Code review | After writing code |
+| security-reviewer | Security analysis | Before commits |
+| build-error-resolver | Fix build errors | When build fails |
+| e2e-runner | E2E testing | Critical user flows |
+| refactor-cleaner | Dead code cleanup | Code maintenance |
+| doc-updater | Documentation | Updating docs |
+| rust-reviewer | Rust code review | Rust projects |
+
+## Immediate Agent Usage
+
+No user prompt needed:
+1. Complex feature requests - Use **planner** agent
+2. Code just written/modified - Use **code-reviewer** agent
+3. Bug fix or new feature - Use **tdd-guide** agent
+4. Architectural decision - Use **architect** agent
+
+## Parallel Task Execution
+
+ALWAYS use parallel Task execution for independent operations:
+
+```markdown
+# GOOD: Parallel execution
+Launch 3 agents in parallel:
+1. Agent 1: Security analysis of auth module
+2. Agent 2: Performance review of cache system
+3. Agent 3: Type checking of utilities
+
+# BAD: Sequential when unnecessary
+First agent 1, then agent 2, then agent 3
+```
+
+## Multi-Perspective Analysis
+
+For complex problems, use split role sub-agents:
+- Factual reviewer
+- Senior engineer
+- Security expert
+- Consistency reviewer
+- Redundancy checker

.claude/rules/common/code-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+# Code Review Standards
+
+## Purpose
+
+Code review ensures quality, security, and maintainability before code is merged. This rule defines when and how to conduct code reviews.
+
+## When to Review
+
+**MANDATORY review triggers:**
+
+- After writing or modifying code
+- Before any commit to shared branches
+- When security-sensitive code is changed (auth, payments, user data)
+- When architectural changes are made
+- Before merging pull requests
+
+**Pre-Review Requirements:**
+
+Before requesting review, ensure:
+
+- All automated checks (CI/CD) are passing
+- Merge conflicts are resolved
+- Branch is up to date with target branch
+
+## Review Checklist
+
+Before marking code complete:
+
+- [ ] Code is readable and well-named
+- [ ] Functions are focused (<50 lines)
+- [ ] Files are cohesive (<800 lines)
+- [ ] No deep nesting (>4 levels)
+- [ ] Errors are handled explicitly
+- [ ] No hardcoded secrets or credentials
+- [ ] No console.log or debug statements
+- [ ] Tests exist for new functionality
+- [ ] Test coverage meets 80% minimum
+
+## Security Review Triggers
+
+**STOP and use security-reviewer agent when:**
+
+- Authentication or authorization code
+- User input handling
+- Database queries
+- File system operations
+- External API calls
+- Cryptographic operations
+- Payment or financial code
+
+## Review Severity Levels
+
+| Level | Meaning | Action |
+|-------|---------|--------|
+| CRITICAL | Security vulnerability or data loss risk | **BLOCK** - Must fix before merge |
+| HIGH | Bug or significant quality issue | **WARN** - Should fix before merge |
+| MEDIUM | Maintainability concern | **INFO** - Consider fixing |
+| LOW | Style or minor suggestion | **NOTE** - Optional |
+
+## Agent Usage
+
+Use these agents for code review:
+
+| Agent | Purpose |
+|-------|---------|
+| **code-reviewer** | General code quality, patterns, best practices |
+| **security-reviewer** | Security vulnerabilities, OWASP Top 10 |
+| **typescript-reviewer** | TypeScript/JavaScript specific issues |
+| **python-reviewer** | Python specific issues |
+| **go-reviewer** | Go specific issues |
+| **rust-reviewer** | Rust specific issues |
+
+## Review Workflow
+
+```
+1. Run git diff to understand changes
+2. Check security checklist first
+3. Review code quality checklist
+4. Run relevant tests
+5. Verify coverage >= 80%
+6. Use appropriate agent for detailed review
+```
+
+## Common Issues to Catch
+
+### Security
+
+- Hardcoded credentials (API keys, passwords, tokens)
+- SQL injection (string concatenation in queries)
+- XSS vulnerabilities (unescaped user input)
+- Path traversal (unsanitized file paths)
+- CSRF protection missing
+- Authentication bypasses
+
+### Code Quality
+
+- Large functions (>50 lines) - split into smaller
+- Large files (>800 lines) - extract modules
+- Deep nesting (>4 levels) - use early returns
+- Missing error handling - handle explicitly
+- Mutation patterns - prefer immutable operations
+- Missing tests - add test coverage
+
+### Performance
+
+- N+1 queries - use JOINs or batching
+- Missing pagination - add LIMIT to queries
+- Unbounded queries - add constraints
+- Missing caching - cache expensive operations
+
+## Approval Criteria
+
+- **Approve**: No CRITICAL or HIGH issues
+- **Warning**: Only HIGH issues (merge with caution)
+- **Block**: CRITICAL issues found
+
+## Integration with Other Rules
+
+This rule works with:
+
+- [testing.md](testing.md) - Test coverage requirements
+- [security.md](security.md) - Security checklist
+- [git-workflow.md](git-workflow.md) - Commit standards
+- [agents.md](agents.md) - Agent delegation

.claude/rules/common/coding-style.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Coding Style
+
+## Immutability (CRITICAL)
+
+ALWAYS create new objects, NEVER mutate existing ones:
+
+```
+// Pseudocode
+WRONG:  modify(original, field, value) → changes original in-place
+CORRECT: update(original, field, value) → returns new copy with change
+```
+
+Rationale: Immutable data prevents hidden side effects, makes debugging easier, and enables safe concurrency.
+
+## File Organization
+
+MANY SMALL FILES > FEW LARGE FILES:
+- High cohesion, low coupling
+- 200-400 lines typical, 800 max
+- Extract utilities from large modules
+- Organize by feature/domain, not by type
+
+## Error Handling
+
+ALWAYS handle errors comprehensively:
+- Handle errors explicitly at every level
+- Provide user-friendly error messages in UI-facing code
+- Log detailed error context on the server side
+- Never silently swallow errors
+
+## Input Validation
+
+ALWAYS validate at system boundaries:
+- Validate all user input before processing
+- Use schema-based validation where available
+- Fail fast with clear error messages
+- Never trust external data (API responses, user input, file content)
+
+## Code Quality Checklist
+
+Before marking work complete:
+- [ ] Code is readable and well-named
+- [ ] Functions are small (<50 lines)
+- [ ] Files are focused (<800 lines)
+- [ ] No deep nesting (>4 levels)
+- [ ] Proper error handling
+- [ ] No hardcoded values (use constants or config)
+- [ ] No mutation (immutable patterns used)

.claude/rules/common/development-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Development Workflow
+
+> This file extends [common/git-workflow.md](./git-workflow.md) with the full feature development process that happens before git operations.
+
+The Feature Implementation Workflow describes the development pipeline: research, planning, TDD, code review, and then committing to git.
+
+## Feature Implementation Workflow
+
+0. **Research & Reuse** _(mandatory before any new implementation)_
+   - **GitHub code search first:** Run `gh search repos` and `gh search code` to find existing implementations, templates, and patterns before writing anything new.
+   - **Library docs second:** Use Context7 or primary vendor docs to confirm API behavior, package usage, and version-specific details before implementing.
+   - **Exa only when the first two are insufficient:** Use Exa for broader web research or discovery after GitHub search and primary docs.
+   - **Check package registries:** Search npm, PyPI, crates.io, and other registries before writing utility code. Prefer battle-tested libraries over hand-rolled solutions.
+   - **Search for adaptable implementations:** Look for open-source projects that solve 80%+ of the problem and can be forked, ported, or wrapped.
+   - Prefer adopting or porting a proven approach over writing net-new code when it meets the requirement.
+
+1. **Plan First**
+   - Use **planner** agent to create implementation plan
+   - Generate planning docs before coding: PRD, architecture, system_design, tech_doc, task_list
+   - Identify dependencies and risks
+   - Break down into phases
+
+2. **TDD Approach**
+   - Use **tdd-guide** agent
+   - Write tests first (RED)
+   - Implement to pass tests (GREEN)
+   - Refactor (IMPROVE)
+   - Verify 80%+ coverage
+
+3. **Code Review**
+   - Use **code-reviewer** agent immediately after writing code
+   - Address CRITICAL and HIGH issues
+   - Fix MEDIUM issues when possible
+
+4. **Commit & Push**
+   - Detailed commit messages
+   - Follow conventional commits format
+   - See [git-workflow.md](./git-workflow.md) for commit message format and PR process
+
+5. **Pre-Review Checks**
+   - Verify all automated checks (CI/CD) are passing
+   - Resolve any merge conflicts
+   - Ensure branch is up to date with target branch
+   - Only request review after these checks pass

.claude/rules/common/git-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Git Workflow
+
+## Commit Message Format
+```
+<type>: <description>
+
+<optional body>
+```
+
+Types: feat, fix, refactor, docs, test, chore, perf, ci
+
+Note: Attribution disabled globally via ~/.claude/settings.json.
+
+## Pull Request Workflow
+
+When creating PRs:
+1. Analyze full commit history (not just latest commit)
+2. Use `git diff [base-branch]...HEAD` to see all changes
+3. Draft comprehensive PR summary
+4. Include test plan with TODOs
+5. Push with `-u` flag if new branch
+
+> For the full development process (planning, TDD, code review) before git operations,
+> see [development-workflow.md](./development-workflow.md).

.claude/rules/common/hooks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Hooks System
+
+## Hook Types
+
+- **PreToolUse**: Before tool execution (validation, parameter modification)
+- **PostToolUse**: After tool execution (auto-format, checks)
+- **Stop**: When session ends (final verification)
+
+## Auto-Accept Permissions
+
+Use with caution:
+- Enable for trusted, well-defined plans
+- Disable for exploratory work
+- Never use dangerously-skip-permissions flag
+- Configure `allowedTools` in `~/.claude.json` instead
+
+## TodoWrite Best Practices
+
+Use TodoWrite tool to:
+- Track progress on multi-step tasks
+- Verify understanding of instructions
+- Enable real-time steering
+- Show granular implementation steps
+
+Todo list reveals:
+- Out of order steps
+- Missing items
+- Extra unnecessary items
+- Wrong granularity
+- Misinterpreted requirements

.claude/rules/common/patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Common Patterns
+
+## Skeleton Projects
+
+When implementing new functionality:
+1. Search for battle-tested skeleton projects
+2. Use parallel agents to evaluate options:
+   - Security assessment
+   - Extensibility analysis
+   - Relevance scoring
+   - Implementation planning
+3. Clone best match as foundation
+4. Iterate within proven structure
+
+## Design Patterns
+
+### Repository Pattern
+
+Encapsulate data access behind a consistent interface:
+- Define standard operations: findAll, findById, create, update, delete
+- Concrete implementations handle storage details (database, API, file, etc.)
+- Business logic depends on the abstract interface, not the storage mechanism
+- Enables easy swapping of data sources and simplifies testing with mocks
+
+### API Response Format
+
+Use a consistent envelope for all API responses:
+- Include a success/status indicator
+- Include the data payload (nullable on error)
+- Include an error message field (nullable on success)
+- Include metadata for paginated responses (total, page, limit)