refactor: mirror module namespaces to their directories (task 0031)

Adopt the convention that a Module's option path mirrors its directory
under modules/, with an index file naming the directory's own segment.

- Group agent Modules under modules.agents.*: claude-code (whole
  directory), pi (flattened to a file), skills (renamed from
  agent-skills), and gitea-axi under an agents/tools/ subgroup. The
  agents/ and tools/ folders are pure namespace prefixes with no
  aggregator enable.
- Nest hypridle and hyprlock under modules.desktop.hyprland.*, with
  hyprland.nix as the index, and update the desktop aggregator.
- Remove the obsolete example Module.
- Record the convention in CONTEXT.md and ADR 0004, and update the
  neogaia host, the two live CLAUDE.md gotchas, and the skills Module's
  intentional Enable-convention exception comment.

modules/agents/claude-code/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+---
+name: test-driven-development
+description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development
+
+## Philosophy
+
+**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
+
+**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
+
+**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
+
+**Tautological tests** restate the implementation inside the assertion, so they pass by construction and give zero confidence. When the expected value is computed the way the code computes it — `expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, snapshotting a figure you derived by hand the same way the code does, asserting a constant equals itself — the test can never disagree with the code: break the code wrong and the assertion breaks wrong with it. The expected value must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
+
+See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
+
+## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
+
+**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
+
+This produces **crap tests**:
+
+- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
+- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
+- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
+- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
+
+**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle.
+
+The test-writer sub-agent (below) is handed **one behavior at a time** and never sees the behavior backlog, so it can't bulk-write the suite.
+
+```
+WRONG (horizontal):
+  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
+  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
+
+RIGHT (vertical):
+  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
+  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
+  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
+  ...
+```
+
+## Roles
+
+Every test is written by a **test-writer sub-agent**. The main agent writes every line of implementation, and never writes or edits a test.
+
+The sub-agent must not read the implementation source of the module under test — that is what keeps its tests from asserting _how_ instead of _what_. It works from the public interface alone.
+
+Use one `general-purpose` sub-agent for the whole task: spawn it at the first RED, then continue it with `SendMessage` for each subsequent RED, so it keeps the test file and conventions it established. Cold-spawn a replacement only if its ID is lost.
+
+### Test-writer sub-agent prompt — include:
+
+- **One behavior**, quoted verbatim from the acceptance criterion or the agreed behavior list. Never the task file, never the rest of the list.
+- The **public interface** under test — signatures only.
+- The existing test file(s) for the module, and the project's test conventions (fixtures, helpers, runner invocation).
+- [tests.md](tests.md) and [mocking.md](mocking.md).
+- The **independent source of truth for the expected value** — the spec excerpt, worked example, or known-good literal. Without it the sub-agent recomputes the expected value the way the code would, and the test is tautological.
+- `.claude/CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) and any ADRs in the area, so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language.
+- The test-side checklist from [Checklist Per Cycle](#checklist-per-cycle), pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
+- The brief: "Write ONE test for this behavior. Do not read the implementation source of the module under test. Write it to the test file, run it, and confirm it fails with a genuine assertion failure — not an import, syntax, or collection error, which prove nothing. Report the test's name and the exact failure message you saw."
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Planning
+
+When exploring the codebase, read `.claude/CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+Identify opportunities for deep modules (small interface, deep implementation) — run the `/codebase-design` skill for the vocabulary and the testability checks. Do this regardless of what triggered this workflow.
+
+**If a task file is already in context** (e.g. passed to `/implement`, which called this skill), its acceptance criteria are the behavior list to test — the interface and priorities were already agreed during `/to-spec` and `/to-tasks`. Don't re-confirm them with the user; go straight to the tracer bullet.
+
+**Otherwise**, before writing any code:
+
+- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
+- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
+- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
+- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
+
+Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
+
+**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
+
+Planning stays with the main agent on both paths — exploration, interface, and the order behaviors are tested in. The sub-agent receives behaviors one at a time; it never chooses what to test next.
+
+### 2. Tracer Bullet
+
+ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
+
+```
+RED:   Spawn the test-writer sub-agent with the first behavior → it writes the test, runs it, reports a genuine failure
+GREEN: Main agent writes minimal code to pass → test passes
+```
+
+This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
+
+### 3. Incremental Loop
+
+For each remaining behavior:
+
+```
+RED:   SendMessage the same sub-agent the next behavior → it writes the test, runs it, reports a genuine failure
+GREEN: Main agent writes minimal code to pass → passes
+```
+
+Rules:
+
+- One test at a time
+- Only enough code to pass current test
+- Don't anticipate future tests
+- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
+
+### When a test looks wrong
+
+The main agent never edits a sub-agent-authored test — not to fix an import, not to "simplify" an assertion, not to reach GREEN.
+
+- **Mechanical defect** — bad import path, a fixture or helper that doesn't exist, doesn't parse. Send the error output back to the sub-agent and let it fix its own test.
+- **Semantic disagreement** — you believe the expected value or the asserted behavior is wrong. Stop and ask the user. Do not resolve it yourself; this disagreement is the signal the sub-agent exists to surface, and half the time it's the code that's wrong.
+
+### 4. Refactor
+
+After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
+
+- [ ] Extract duplication
+- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
+- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
+- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
+- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
+
+**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
+
+A test that breaks during refactor means the refactor broke behavior — fix the code. The one exception is a public interface change you made deliberately (a module deepened, a signature moved, as agreed in the plan): send the interface change to the sub-agent and let it update its own tests. There is no case where the main agent edits the test itself.
+
+## Checklist Per Cycle
+
+Test-writer sub-agent, per test — paste into its prompt:
+
+```
+[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
+[ ] Test uses public interface only
+[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
+[ ] Expected values are independent literals, not recomputed from the code
+```
+
+Main agent, per GREEN:
+
+```
+[ ] Code is minimal for this test
+[ ] No speculative features added
+```

modules/agents/claude-code/skills/test-driven-development/mocking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# When to Mock
+
+Mock at **system boundaries** only:
+
+- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
+- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
+- Time/randomness
+- File system (sometimes)
+
+Don't mock:
+
+- Your own classes/modules
+- Internal collaborators
+- Anything you control
+
+## Designing for Mockability
+
+At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
+
+**1. Use dependency injection**
+
+Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
+
+```typescript
+// Easy to mock
+function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
+  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
+}
+
+// Hard to mock
+function processPayment(order) {
+  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
+  return client.charge(order.total);
+}
+```
+
+**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
+
+Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
+const api = {
+  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
+  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
+  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
+};
+
+// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
+const api = {
+  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
+};
+```
+
+The SDK approach means:
+- Each mock returns one specific shape
+- No conditional logic in test setup
+- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
+- Type safety per endpoint

modules/agents/claude-code/skills/test-driven-development/refactoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Refactor Candidates
+
+After TDD cycle, look for:
+
+- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
+- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
+- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen — see DEEPENING.md in `/codebase-design` for dependency categories and seam discipline
+- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
+- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
+- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic

modules/agents/claude-code/skills/test-driven-development/tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Good and Bad Tests
+
+## Good Tests
+
+**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
+test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
+  const cart = createCart();
+  cart.add(product);
+  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
+  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
+});
+```
+
+Characteristics:
+
+- Tests behavior users/callers care about
+- Uses public API only
+- Survives internal refactors
+- Describes WHAT, not HOW
+- One logical assertion per test
+
+## Bad Tests
+
+**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Tests implementation details
+test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
+  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
+  await checkout(cart, payment);
+  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
+});
+```
+
+Red flags:
+
+- Mocking internal collaborators
+- Testing private methods
+- Asserting on call counts/order
+- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
+- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
+- Verifying through external means instead of interface
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
+test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
+  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
+  expect(row).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// GOOD: Verifies through interface
+test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
+  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
+  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
+});
+```
+
+**Tautological tests**: Expected value restates the implementation, so the test passes by construction.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Expected value is recomputed the way the code computes it
+test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
+  const items = [{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }];
+  const expected = items.reduce((sum, i) => sum + i.price, 0);
+  expect(calculateTotal(items)).toBe(expected);
+});
+
+// GOOD: Expected value is an independent, known literal
+test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
+  expect(calculateTotal([{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }])).toBe(15);
+});
+```