t3-provision-users: vendor agent skills + per-user install_skills (emo)

Make the admin's Claude Code agent skills available to the `emo` devvm user.
Viktor asked to install Matt Pocock's skills for emo, starting with grill-me
but covering the full set the admin already uses.

The `npx skills` upstream has drifted off that set (diagnose -> diagnosing-bugs
and write-a-skill -> writing-great-skills were renamed; caveman + zoom-out are
no longer published), so reproducing it via npx is impossible and would also
spray ~70 agent dirs into the user's home + add a GitHub-clone + unpinned-CLI
dependency to the hourly root reconcile. Instead vendor a point-in-time
snapshot of the 16 skills (scripts/workstation/claude-skills/) and copy them
per-user, mirroring install_memory: install_skills() copies each skill into
~/.agents/skills/<name> (owned by the user) and symlinks
~/.claude/skills/<name> -> ../../.agents/skills/<name>. if-absent, additive,
best-effort, scoped to the SKILL_USERS allowlist (emo).

find-skills is from vercel-labs/skills (not Matt Pocock) but included since it
is part of the admin's current set.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

scripts/workstation/claude-skills/improve-codebase-architecture/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.