chore: initial monorepo scaffold + WDS Phase 1+2 artifacts

- Nx 22.7 monorepo (pnpm 11.1, TypeScript 5.9, Node 24)
- apps/api: NestJS 11 (CJS conforme CODING-RULES.md PGD-DB-004)
- apps/web: React 19 + Vite 8 (ESM)
- libs/shared/api-interface: Zod contract base
- Docker Compose dev: Postgres 18, Valkey 8, MinIO, Mailpit
- WDS artifacts:
  - design-artifacts/A-Product-Brief/ (5 docs canônicos + 16 dialogs)
  - design-artifacts/B-Trigger-Map/ (hub + 4 personas + feature impact)
- Stack canon: STACK.md v2.2 + CODING-RULES.md v2.0 + brand.md
- AGENTS.md + README.md como entrada para devs/agentes

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

.claude/skills/bmad-tea/resources/knowledge/confidence-gate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# Confidence Gate
+
+## Principle
+
+When generating tests, scaffolding fixtures, classifying risk, or proposing any non-trivial test artifact, emit a confidence assessment before writing code. If confidence is below the threshold, stop and ask the user instead of generating plausible-looking output built on guesses.
+
+## Rationale
+
+The failure mode of LLM-generated tests is rarely "refused to try" — it is "generated something plausible that passes locally and breaks silently in CI." Hallucinated selectors, invented endpoint paths, fabricated risk scores, and reverse-engineered schemas all produce code that looks correct and tests nothing real. A confidence gate makes that failure mode loud by forcing the agent to declare its evidence and its unknowns before any artifact is committed.
+
+## Required output shape
+
+Every non-trivial test artifact proposal must include:
+
+```
+Confidence: <1-10>
+Rationale: <one or two sentences citing concrete evidence from the repo or contract>
+Unknowns: <bulleted list of things the agent does not know>
+```
+
+The Rationale must cite a file path, a contract document, an existing pattern, or a captured observation. Vague rationale ("based on standard patterns", "looks similar to other tests") is not evidence and forces the score down.
+
+## Threshold rule
+
+- **Confidence ≥ 7** — proceed with generation.
+- **Confidence 5–6** — proceed but surface the assumptions to the user in the output so they can correct mid-flight.
+- **Confidence < 5** — STOP. Do not generate. Ask the user to resolve the most-blocking Unknown first.
+
+## When to apply
+
+Apply the gate when generating or proposing:
+
+- **Selectors and page objects.** Must have explored the live application via `playwright-cli` or read existing page object patterns. Confidence < 5 if neither.
+- **Endpoint paths and request shapes.** Must have read the OpenAPI / Swagger contract or existing endpoint enums. Confidence < 5 if the endpoint is being invented.
+- **Risk classification (test-design, NFR).** Must cite probability and impact evidence. Confidence < 5 if scoring is vibes-based.
+- **Fixture composition.** Must understand existing `mergeTests` patterns and fixture boundaries in the repo. Confidence < 5 if composing blindly.
+- **Schema authoring (Zod, Ajv, JSON Schema).** Must have a documented contract source (OpenAPI, JSON schema, existing schema file). Confidence < 5 if reverse-engineering from a single sample response.
+- **Data factories.** Must understand the production data shape and constraints. Confidence < 5 if guessing field validity rules.
+
+## When NOT to apply
+
+- Mechanical refactors with clear scope (rename a variable, add a tag, update an import).
+- Reading or summarizing existing artifacts.
+- Producing reports from already-gathered data.
+- Trivial test additions that copy an existing pattern exactly.
+
+The gate exists to prevent fabrication, not to bureaucratize obvious work.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+❌ **Vanity scores.** `Confidence: 9` with no Rationale, or Rationale that does not cite evidence. Score the evidence, not the optimism.
+
+❌ **Listing then ignoring Unknowns.** Listing unknowns and then proceeding anyway when Confidence is below threshold. If the gate is below threshold, the only valid next action is to ask the user.
+
+❌ **Asking generically.** Asking "should I proceed?" instead of resolving the most-blocking Unknown with a concrete one-sentence question.
+
+❌ **Inflating to clear the bar.** Adjusting Confidence upward to avoid the stop rule. If the evidence is weak, the score is weak; resolve the evidence, not the number.
+
+## Patterns that work
+
+✅ **Cite the source.** "Confidence: 8 — Rationale: read `src/openapi/users.yaml` line 142-167 and existing schema at `tests/api/users.schema.ts`."
+
+✅ **One concrete Unknown.** When below threshold, ask one specific question: "Is `POST /users/{id}/role` documented anywhere? I can't find it in the OpenAPI spec and there are no existing tests for it."
+
+✅ **Promote evidence.** When the user answers the Unknown, the Rationale gets stronger and Confidence rises legitimately. The gate is a feedback loop, not a checkpoint.
+
+## Related fragments
+
+- `test-quality.md` — Definition of Done for tests; the gate protects DoD compliance.
+- `risk-governance.md` — risk scoring discipline that informs Rationale for risk-related gates.
+- `probability-impact.md` — scoring scales used in risk-related Rationale.
+- `selector-resilience.md` — selector confidence specifically.
+- `playwright-cli.md` — the sanctioned exploration tool that promotes selector Confidence.