refactor(skills): retrofit the corpus to the ADR-0020 context contract (#129)

Retrofits all 39 skills to ADR-0020's description/body context contract, then fixes what six rounds of independent review found in that retrofit — including four ways the hot gate itself failed open.

Closes #99, #107, #108, #110, #111, #114, #115, #120.

## The retrofit (waves 1-5)

| | Start | Now |
|---|---|---|
| Description FAILs (>400 chars) | 26 | **0** |
| Body FAILs (>900 words, body-only) | 9 | **0** |
| Dangling routing targets | 2 | **0** |
| `Kyberforge.CompositionNote` | 10 | **0** |
| Preload tax | 21,005 chars | **~10,500** |

Under the 12,000-char success criterion. Per-wave detail is on #99.

## The review fixes

**The gate failed open four ways, three of them found after the retrofit shipped.** An unrecognised follower token made a dangling target vanish. A skill directory with no `SKILL.md` resolved as a valid target, so a commit could be green locally and red in a fresh clone — three existing fixtures were relying on that, one of which made the install-leak A/B pass vacuously. Then the free-standing `/name` sweep turned out to be gated on the sentence carrying a boundary marker, so route notation in any other sentence was invisible — not an ERROR, not a SUGGESTION, not an INFO — which left the documented "`/name` always blocks" promise false from a second direction. All four fixed and pinned.

**Two checks were silently not running.** `validate-provenance.sh` checks 7-8 were dead across nine skills. Waking them exposed a deeper problem: they assume `Research doc:` names a source index, but 30 of 121 entries point at topic content documents, so every new check-7 INFO was a false positive and check 8 was saved from a false-FAIL flood only by an *unannounced* skip. Checks 7/8 are now scoped to source indexes and every skip announces itself (#121).

**The retrofit's own anti-goal, four times.** ADR-0020 warns that a blunt gate gets satisfied by deleting content rather than relocating it. `diagnose` and `skill-audit` relocated prose and then read it unconditionally; `prototype` and `vale-config` deleted rules outright that survived nowhere. All four addressed.

## Verification

- `bash tests/run-tests.sh --strict` — 24 suites, 0 skipped, 0 failed
- `bash tests/run-bats.sh` — 325 tests, 0 failures
- `pre-commit run --all-files` — 17/17
- `pre-commit run --hook-stage pre-push --all-files` — 16/16, with `apm marketplace check` and `apm pack --check-clean` run against the remote, not skipped
- `scripts/skill-size-check.sh` over all 39 skills — rc 0, 0 ERROR/FAIL, SUGGESTION-only
- Preload tax measured at **10,498 chars**, max description 390 — both inside budget
- Every new test proven non-vacuous by a deliberate mutation of the behaviour it covers

**Per-commit sync, stated accurately:** the ten commits from the latest review round each pass `check-plugin-content-sync` in isolation, verified by checking each out in a detached worktree with a clean between. The earlier gitea window (`dfacf05..bedbd1d`, nine commits) does **not** — its mirror was regenerated in one batch at `bbc7300`. An earlier revision of this description claimed the property held for every commit; it does not, and a bisect through that window lands on a red commit. **Squash-merge** to collapse it, or accept that this range is not bisectable.

## Version bump

Six plugins and the catalog take a **patch**, not a minor. The branch is **89 commits — 40 `fix` / 30 `refactor` / 12 `docs` / 5 `chore` / 2 `test` — zero `feat`, zero `!`, zero `BREAKING CHANGE`** — and adds no skill, agent, command or hook. (Two earlier revisions of this section cited a stale histogram, most recently 78 commits; the figures above are measured at HEAD.) Both rules this repo ships (`forge/references/version-bump.md`, landing in this PR, and `git-commits/references/conventional-commits-spec.md`) make that a patch, and the catalog set is unchanged at 7 entries.

Not settled by that: four published files were removed from the installed tree, three moved, and `caveman` gained `disable-model-invocation`, retiring its old triggers. Under a strict reading those are major-class and currently ship under `refactor:` with no marker. Whether the deployed skill surface is a public contract is written down nowhere — worth deciding, but it outlives this PR.

## Deliberately not in scope

#112 (cherry-pick ownership, now resolved in favour of `git-commits`), #113 (`rtk git` normalisation), #116 (research fan-out), #101 (audit-skill merge), #122 (non-spec skill-root files), #123 (no PRD producer) stay open. #117 is the one worth reading: the contract's remedy is to move prose into `references/`, which is exactly where neither the size gate nor Vale looks — and the blind spot is wider than #117 currently records, since there is no root `.vale.ini` at all, so every ADR, `CONTEXT.md` and `README.md` is unlinted too.

That blind spot let this branch carry two `level: error` `Kyberforge.SentenceOpenerThereIs` violations into `references/` files it created — `provider-adapter-author/references/provider-matrix.md:31` and `agent-audit/references/finding-criteria.md:95`. Both are reworded in `afadaae`, confirmed by routing each file through the audit's own `vale-wrap.sh` (1 error each before, 0 after). Five further occurrences sit in `references/` files already on `main`; those are the pre-existing corpus and stay with #117, which is the real fix.

Also unfixed and not this PR's: `apm install` appends a duplicate `SessionStart` entry to `.claude/settings.json`, so a fresh clone cannot get pre-push green without an edit AGENTS.md warns against. Reproduces identically on `main`.

Co-authored-by: Defame1297 <gitea@rkdr.net>
Reviewed-on: https://git.dev.rkdr.net/Defame1297/holocron/pulls/129
Co-authored-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net>
Co-committed-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net>

plugins/gitea/skills/gitea-branches/references/branches.md

@@ -7,10 +7,11 @@ source_keys:
 
 # Branch operations
 
-Call signatures below were verified live against the deployed `gitea-mcp` server via `ToolSearch`
-at authoring time, not copied from research docs — this is deliberate: research docs are generated
-from source code at a point in time and can drift from the server actually deployed. Re-verify
-against the live schema if these tools appear to behave differently than documented here.
+Call signatures below were verified live against the deployed `gitea-mcp` server via `ToolSearch`,
+not copied from research docs — this is deliberate: research docs are generated from source code at
+a point in time and can drift from the server actually deployed. **Last verified against gitea-mcp
+v1.7.0**, as reported by `get_gitea_mcp_server_version`. Re-verify against the live schema if the
+deployed version differs or these tools behave differently than documented here.
 
 ## `list_branches`
 
@@ -21,7 +22,7 @@ against the live schema if these tools appear to behave differently than documen
 - `per_page` (number, optional, default: `30`)
 
 **Call:**
-```
+```text
 list_branches owner: <owner> repo: <repo>
 ```
 
@@ -41,7 +42,7 @@ count is less than `per_page`.
   branch server-side (not necessarily your current local checkout)
 
 **Call:**
-```
+```text
 create_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <new-name> old_branch: <source-branch>
 ```
 
@@ -53,6 +54,29 @@ top-level request with no working branch context), omit `old_branch` and let it
 
 A branch name collision returns `409 Conflict`.
 
+## `rename_branch`
+
+**Parameters:**
+- `owner` (string, required)
+- `repo` (string, required)
+- `branch` (string, required) — the branch's current name
+- `new_name` (string, required) — the name to move it to
+
+**Call:**
+```text
+rename_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <current-name> new_name: <new-name>
+```
+
+A rename moves the ref server-side; it is not a delete-plus-create, and no commit history is
+rewritten. What it does to things *pointing at* the old name — open pull requests using it as head or
+base, a branch protection rule matching it, CI config, and tracking branches on every other clone —
+is **not confirmed** by this skill's sources: the deployed tool describes itself only as "Rename an
+existing branch in a repository". Treat a rename of a branch with open PRs or a protection rule as a
+change needing verification afterward (`list_branches`, plus `gitea-prs` for the PR side), and
+confirm with the user first, exactly as for `delete_branch` below. A collision with an existing
+branch name is expected to return `409 Conflict` by analogy with `create_branch`, not separately
+confirmed.
+
 ## `delete_branch`
 
 **Parameters:**
@@ -61,11 +85,11 @@ A branch name collision returns `409 Conflict`.
 - `branch` (string, required)
 
 **Call:**
-```
+```text
 delete_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <name>
 ```
 
-Before calling this, see the hard-refusal Gotcha in SKILL.md. If the target branch's name isn't
+Before calling this, see the `delete_branch` Gotcha in SKILL.md. If the target branch's name isn't
 obviously a scratch/feature branch, call `list_branches` first and check `protected` on the
 matching entry — name-matching `main`/`master` alone isn't authoritative, since a repo can protect
 a differently-named default branch. Confirm explicitly with the user before deleting anything
@@ -73,9 +97,12 @@ protected, every time, regardless of how the request is phrased.
 
 ## Token scope
 
-All three — `list_branches`, `create_branch`, `delete_branch` — require `write:repository`. Gitea
+`list_branches`, `create_branch` and `delete_branch` all require `write:repository`. Gitea
 gates reads behind write scope for repo-scoped operations, so `list_branches` needs the same scope
 as the write operations, not `write:issue` alone. An earlier version of this doc claimed
 `write:issue` alone was sufficient for `list_branches`, based on empirical testing under a token
 that held both `write:issue` and `write:repository` simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the
 variable, so it couldn't actually establish `write:issue` alone as sufficient.
+
+`rename_branch` is a write on the same repo-scoped surface and is inferred to need `write:repository`
+too — inferred by analogy, not separately confirmed.