fix(gitea): make gitea-releases executable and correct misleading domain claims

gitea-releases was the weakest skill in the plugin: no allowed-tools, no
owner/repo resolution, and a checkbox list where a dispatch table belongs, so
an agent reaching it had to guess both its permissions and its inputs. The
id-vs-tag_name trap — deleting by tag name where the API wants the numeric id —
is restored as an explicit Gotcha because it destroys the wrong release
silently.

Elsewhere the `exclusive` flag was documented on the wrong side of the
read/write split, and label data from one instance was presented as though it
were universal, which invites an agent to assume a taxonomy that does not
exist on the target repo. rename_branch was missing from the branch surface.
Reference prose and fences are cleaned up in passing.

plugins/gitea/skills/gitea-labels-milestones/references/label-inference.md

@@ -12,15 +12,11 @@ description) to this repo's `Kind/*` / `Priority/*` / `Status/*` label taxonomy.
 `gitea-issues` and `gitea-prs` before creating or updating an issue/PR, and directly when the user
 asks to label something without naming exact labels.
 
-## Exclusivity is per label — read it, never infer it
+## Branching on exclusivity
 
-Gitea's `exclusive` flag is a real per-label boolean returned by `list_repo_labels`, and where it is
-`true` the server enforces one-label-per-scope itself. It is not an org-only setting, and the `/`
-delimiter in a name says nothing about it. Verified on `Defame1297/holocron`: every `Priority/*`,
-`Reviewed/*` and `Status/*` label is `exclusive: true`, while every `Kind/*` label — and
-`Compat/Breaking` — is `exclusive: false` and is used stacked.
-
-So read each candidate label's own `exclusive` value from the resolution call and branch on it:
+`references/labels.md` owns the exclusivity rule and the read-versus-write asymmetry behind it. Read
+it there rather than assuming a scope's behaviour from its name. Inference needs only the branch:
+carry each candidate label's own `exclusive` value forward from the resolution call and act on it.
 
 - **`exclusive: true`** — the server drops the sibling on write. Add the label and let it; do not
   pre-remove the label already there, and do not compute a replacement set client-side. Inferring
@@ -29,7 +25,7 @@ So read each candidate label's own `exclusive` value from the resolution call an
   same scope destroys a valid one: an issue can legitimately carry `Kind/Bug` and `Kind/Security`
   at once.
 
-There is no client-side exclusivity convention for this skill to enforce.
+This skill enforces no client-side exclusivity convention of its own.
 
 ## Signal → label mapping
 
@@ -42,6 +38,7 @@ There is no client-side exclusivity convention for this skill to enforce.
 | Improvement to existing behavior, "make X better", refactor with behavior change | `Kind/Enhancement` |
 | Docs-only change, README/comment/guide updates | `Kind/Documentation` |
 | Vulnerability, credential exposure, injection risk, auth bypass | `Kind/Security` |
+| Test coverage, "add tests for X", a missing or flaky test, a test-only change | `Kind/Testing` |
 
 **`Priority/*`** (urgency):
 
@@ -49,6 +46,7 @@ There is no client-side exclusivity convention for this skill to enforce.
 |---|---|
 | "blocking", "critical", "urgent", production-down | `Priority/Critical` |
 | "soon", "high priority", "should do this sprint" | `Priority/High` |
+| "low priority", "nice to have", "whenever", explicitly deferred | `Priority/Low` |
 | No urgency signal present | `Priority/Medium` (default) |
 
 **`Status/*`** (workflow state):
@@ -57,6 +55,10 @@ There is no client-side exclusivity convention for this skill to enforce.
 |---|---|
 | Explicit statement that the work is blocked on something else | `Status/Blocked` |
 
+The label names in all three tables are the taxonomy this guide was written against; none of them is
+guaranteed to exist on the target repo. Step 2 below resolves every inferred name against the live
+label set, and a name that does not resolve is reported rather than substituted.
+
 ## Procedure
 
 1. Read the conversation context (issue/PR title, body, or the triggering discussion) for the