Add general-purpose skills and rules from DeepSat coding-rulesets

Skills (adapted from DeepSat, stripped of project-specific references):
- /review-pr: PR review against engineering standards
- /fix-issue: issue-to-merge TDD workflow
- /security-check: secrets, OWASP, and dependency audit
- /debug: systematic 4-phase debugging
- /add-tests: test coverage analysis and generation
- /respond-to-review: evaluate and implement code review feedback

Rules (general-purpose, copied as-is):
- testing.md: universal TDD standards and anti-patterns
- verification.md: proof over assumption

Makefile updated to install both skills and rules via symlinks.

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

1 files changed, 57 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/review-pr/SKILL.md b/review-pr/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c7ebd75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/review-pr/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# /review-pr — Review a Pull Request
+
+Review a PR against engineering standards.
+
+## Usage
+
+```
+/review-pr [PR_NUMBER]
+```
+
+If no PR number is given, review the current branch's open PR.
+
+## Instructions
+
+1. Fetch the PR diff and description using `gh pr view` and `gh pr diff`.
+2. Review against these criteria, reporting each as PASS / WARN / FAIL:
+
+### Security
+- No hardcoded secrets, tokens, API keys, or credentials
+- All user input validated at system boundary
+- Parameterized queries only (no SQL string concatenation)
+- No sensitive data logged (PII, tokens, passwords)
+- Dependencies pinned and auditable
+
+### Testing (TDD Evidence)
+- Tests exist for all new code — check for test commits **before** implementation commits (TDD workflow)
+- All three categories covered: normal (happy path), boundary, and error cases — edge cases must be thorough, not token
+- Tests are independent — no shared mutable state between tests
+- Mocking is at external boundaries only (network, file I/O, time) — domain logic tested directly
+- Test naming follows project convention
+- Coverage does not decrease — flag PRs that lower coverage without justification
+
+### Conventions
+- Type annotations on all functions (including return types)
+- Conventional commit messages (`feat:`, `fix:`, `chore:`, etc.)
+- No AI attribution anywhere (code, comments, commits, PR descriptions)
+- One logical change per commit
+- Docstrings on public functions/classes
+
+### Root Cause & Thoroughness
+- Bug fixes address the root cause, not surface symptoms — if the fix is a band-aid, flag it
+- Changes demonstrate understanding of the surrounding code (not just the changed lines)
+- Edge cases are covered comprehensively, not just the obvious happy path
+
+### Architecture
+- Request handlers deal with request/response only — business logic in services or domain layer
+- No unnecessary abstractions or over-engineering
+- Changes scoped to what was asked (no drive-by refactoring)
+
+### API Contracts
+- New endpoints have typed contracts or schemas defined
+- No raw dict/object responses bypassing the contract layer
+- Client-side types match server-side output
+- Data flows through the API layer, not direct data access from handlers
+
+3. Summarize findings with a clear verdict: **Approve**, **Request Changes**, or **Needs Discussion**.
+4. For each WARN or FAIL, include the file and line number with a brief explanation.