feat: implement new claude skills and workflow

.claude/skills/planner/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Planner
+
+LLM-generated plans have gaps. I have seen missing error handling, vague
+acceptance criteria, specs that nobody can implement. I built this skill with
+two workflows -- planning and execution -- connected by quality gates that catch
+these problems early.
+
+## Planning Workflow
+
+```
+  Planning ----+
+      |        |
+      v        |
+     QR -------+  [fail: restart planning]
+      |
+      v
+     TW -------+
+      |        |
+      v        |
+   QR-Docs ----+  [fail: restart TW]
+      |
+      v
+   APPROVED
+```
+
+| Step                    | Actions                                                                    |
+| ----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Context & Scope         | Confirm path, define scope, identify approaches, list constraints          |
+| Decision & Architecture | Evaluate approaches, select with reasoning, diagram, break into milestones |
+| Refinement              | Document risks, add uncertainty flags, specify paths and criteria          |
+| Final Verification      | Verify completeness, check specs, write to file                            |
+| QR-Completeness         | Verify Decision Log complete, policy defaults confirmed, plan structure    |
+| QR-Code                 | Read codebase, verify diff context, apply RULE 0/1/2 to proposed code      |
+| Technical Writer        | Scrub temporal comments, add WHY comments, enrich rationale                |
+| QR-Docs                 | Verify no temporal contamination, comments explain WHY not WHAT            |
+
+So, why all the feedback loops? QR-Completeness and QR-Code run before TW to
+catch structural issues early. QR-Docs runs after TW to validate documentation
+quality. Doc issues restart only TW; structure issues restart planning. The loop
+runs until both pass.
+
+## Execution Workflow
+
+```
+  Plan --> Milestones --> QR --> Docs --> Retrospective
+               ^          |
+               +- [fail] -+
+
+  * Reconciliation phase precedes Milestones when resuming partial work
+```
+
+After planning completes and context clears (`/clear`), execution proceeds:
+
+| Step                   | Purpose                                                         |
+| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Execution Planning     | Analyze plan, detect reconciliation signals, output strategy    |
+| Reconciliation         | (conditional) Validate existing code against plan               |
+| Milestone Execution    | Delegate to agents, run tests; repeat until all complete        |
+| Post-Implementation QR | Quality review of implemented code                              |
+| Issue Resolution       | (conditional) Present issues, collect decisions, delegate fixes |
+| Documentation          | Technical writer updates CLAUDE.md/README.md                    |
+| Retrospective          | Present execution summary                                       |
+
+I designed the coordinator to never write code directly -- it delegates to
+developers. Separating coordination from implementation produces cleaner
+results. The coordinator:
+
+- Parallelizes independent work across up to 4 developers per milestone
+- Runs quality review after all milestones complete
+- Loops through issue resolution until QR passes
+- Invokes technical writer only after QR passes
+
+**Reconciliation** handles resume scenarios. When the user request contains
+signals like "already implemented", "resume", or "partially complete", the
+workflow validates existing code against plan requirements before executing
+remaining milestones. Building on unverified code means rework.
+
+**Issue Resolution** presents each QR finding individually with options (Fix /
+Skip / Alternative). Fixes delegate to developers or technical writers, then QR
+runs again. This cycle repeats until QR passes.