[codex] Add skills CLI and catalog management (#6782)

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through
company-scoped control-plane workflows.
> - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed,
reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup.
> - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills,
optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills
have clear provenance.
> - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and
managing company skills.
> - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog,
company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI.
> - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills
are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage.

## What Changed

- Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog
listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills.
- Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled
and optional skill content plus validation/build tests.
- Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI,
server, and UI contracts.
- Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog
operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance.
- Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains
explicit across local adapters.
- Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed
company skills.
- Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills
Paperclip skill reference.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no
`pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included
in the final PR diff.

## Verification

- Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`.
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default
branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`.
- Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four
provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database
from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump
contains a duplicate-column foreign key
(`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The
default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the
focused run above.
- Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and
no migration-file changes relative to `master`.

## Risks

- Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server
APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI.
- Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention
because they affect reusable company setup and portability.
- No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no
migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff.
- No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be
handled by the repository lockfile workflow.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the
`codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool
access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata is not exposed
in this runtime.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run targeted tests locally and documented the local
workspace-runtime seed failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally
omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and
reviewer inspection
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

packages/skills-catalog/catalog/bundled/paperclip-operations/task-planning/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+---
+name: task-planning
+description: Turn a Paperclip issue or request into a structured implementation plan with child task graph, blockers, owners, and acceptance criteria, then save it as the issue `plan` document.
+key: paperclipai/bundled/paperclip-operations/task-planning
+recommendedForRoles:
+  - manager
+  - engineer
+  - product
+tags:
+  - paperclip
+  - planning
+  - issues
+  - delegation
+---
+
+# Task Planning
+
+Produce implementation plans that the Paperclip executor can actually run: explicit child issues, real blockers, named owners, and a defined acceptance bar. Avoid plans that read well but cannot be split into work.
+
+## When to use
+
+- An issue asks you to "plan", "scope", "break down", "design the rollout", "propose the work", or similar.
+- A user wants a written plan before approving implementation.
+- A manager needs to delegate non-trivial work and the shape of the work is not obvious yet.
+- You inherited an issue too large to deliver in one heartbeat and need to split it.
+
+## When not to use
+
+- The issue is a single small change you can ship in the same heartbeat. Just ship it.
+- The issue is forensic ("why did this break"). Use a diagnosis skill first; plan only after the root cause is named.
+- A current `plan` document already exists and the change is minor. Update that document; do not start fresh.
+
+## Outputs
+
+1. An updated issue document with key `plan` (markdown).
+2. A short comment on the issue that links to the plan document and names the next action.
+3. Where the plan requires approval, an issue-thread interaction of kind `request_confirmation` bound to the latest plan revision.
+
+Do not create implementation subtasks until the plan is accepted.
+
+## Plan structure
+
+Required sections, in order:
+
+1. **Goal** — one paragraph. What changes for the user, the operator, or the system once this work lands.
+2. **Context reviewed** — bullet list of documents, files, and prior issues you read. Lets reviewers spot missing inputs.
+3. **Constraints and non-goals** — what must hold (compatibility, security, performance) and what this plan deliberately will not do.
+4. **Approach** — the chosen path, with a short rationale. If you considered alternatives, name them and why you rejected them.
+5. **Work breakdown** — ordered list of child issues. Each child has:
+   - Title in imperative form.
+   - Owner specialty (Engineer, QA, Designer, Security, DevRel, Manager, etc.).
+   - Scope and deliverables.
+   - Acceptance criteria.
+   - Blocks/blocked-by relationships expressed by phase letter or child title.
+6. **Acceptance** — the bar for the parent issue. How the user knows the whole thing is done.
+7. **Risks and mitigations** — short list. Skip if there are none.
+8. **Deferrals** — what is intentionally pushed to follow-up issues, with why.
+
+## Rules of thumb for splitting
+
+- One child issue, one specialty. If two specialties have to coordinate inside the same issue, split it.
+- One child issue, one acceptance verdict. If a reviewer would say "this is half done", split it.
+- A child must be checkout-able by the owner from its title and description alone. Reviewers should not have to re-read the parent plan to understand a child.
+- Order children by real blocker chains, not by author preference. Parallel children should explicitly say `blockers: none`.
+- Avoid `polish` or `cleanup` child issues without acceptance criteria — they never close.
+
+## Filing the plan
+
+Use the Paperclip API to write the plan document, then comment:
+
+- `PUT /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/plan` with the markdown body. If `plan` already exists, include the latest `baseRevisionId`.
+- `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/comments` with a short summary that links the plan: `/<prefix>/issues/<issue-id>#document-plan`.
+- If approval is required: `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions` with `kind: request_confirmation`, `targetRevisionId` set to the new plan revision, `continuationPolicy: wake_assignee`, and `idempotencyKey: "confirmation:{issueId}:plan:{revisionId}"`.
+- Set the issue to `in_review` after creating the confirmation. Stay assigned so the acceptance wakes the planner.
+
+When the plan is accepted, see the companion skill for converting accepted plans into Paperclip executable tasks.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- Plan disguised as a description edit. Use the `plan` document.
+- "Phases A–Z" with no work breakdown inside the phases.
+- Children with descriptions that say "see parent" — they fail at delegation time.
+- Acceptance written as "code review approval". Reviewers need a behavior bar, not a process bar.
+- Plans that bury blocker chains in prose. Use explicit blocked-by lines.