fix(skills): pull upstream skill runtime resolution to stop event-loop starvation

The fork's listRuntimeSkillEntries rematerialized every skill's files from
the DB on every heartbeat run dispatch — fs.rm + fs.mkdir + per-file
readFile/writeFile, sequentially per skill. With 24 configured skills and
5 concurrent agents, this saturated the Node event loop badly enough that
executeRun continuations couldn't reach activeRunExecutions.add() within
the orphan-reaper's 5-min threshold, causing reaper to false-positive runs
as "process_lost".

Upstream's listRuntimeSkillEntries calls resolveRuntimeSkillSource, which
checks if the materialized directory already exists on disk and short-
circuits when it does. Fixes the symptom at the root.

Replaces these files with upstream/master content:
  - server/src/services/company-skills.ts
  - server/src/services/heartbeat.ts
  - server/src/services/workspace-runtime.ts
  - server/src/services/company-portability.ts
  - server/src/routes/company-skills.ts
  - server/src/routes/agents.ts
  - packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts

Pulls in supporting upstream files:
  - server/src/services/catalog-provenance.ts
  - server/src/services/skills-catalog.ts
  - server/src/services/github-fetch.ts
  - server/src/services/portable-path.ts
  - packages/skills-catalog/ (new package)
  - packages/db document_annotation_* schema + migration 0091
  - packages/shared document-annotation types/validators

Drops fork features (to be re-evaluated later):
  - Gitea/Forgejo git skill sources (server/src/services/git-source.ts deleted)
  - PAT support for private skill repos
  - Fork-specific secret-export portability extensions

Adds agentId: null to acquireRunLease test-probe call in routes/agents.ts
to satisfy the fork's environment-runtime agentId requirement (kept).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

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.