refactor(bin): move non-spec root files into references/ across four skills

grill-with-docs, improve-codebase-architecture, tdd, and triage kept
non-spec markdown files at their skill root, in violation of
skill-audit's file-structure.md rule (only SKILL.md/README.md belong
at the root; everything else lives in scripts/, references/, assets/
or tests/). A root-level file is invisible to the ADR-0020
dangling-reference gate, which only resolves unqualified
`references/...` pointers.

- Moved and renamed to lowercase-kebab-case under references/:
  grill-with-docs (ADR-FORMAT.md, CONTEXT-FORMAT.md),
  improve-codebase-architecture (DEEPENING.md, INTERFACE-DESIGN.md,
  LANGUAGE.md), tdd (five files, casing was already fine), triage
  (AGENT-BRIEF.md, OUT-OF-SCOPE.md).
- Updated every in-skill link to the new references/ paths, including
  link text that still showed the old uppercase filenames.
- Fixed improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md's cross-skill citation
  of grill-with-docs's two files to the sanctioned possessive form
  with the references/ segment included.
- Updated all four skills' README.md file tables to match.
- Regenerated the flat content mirror via
  scripts/sync-plugin-content.sh --all.

Fixes #122.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PDj6F7SPXzh3FtPN78dZ88

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/references/interface-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Interface Design
+
+When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
+
+Uses the vocabulary in [language.md](language.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Frame the problem space
+
+Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
+
+- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
+- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [deepening.md](deepening.md))
+- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
+
+Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
+
+### 2. Spawn sub-agents
+
+Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
+
+Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [deepening.md](deepening.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
+
+- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
+- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
+- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
+- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
+
+Include both [language.md](language.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
+
+Each sub-agent outputs:
+
+1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
+2. Usage example showing how callers use it
+3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
+4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [deepening.md](deepening.md))
+5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
+
+### 3. Present and compare
+
+Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
+
+After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.