feat: add GitHub Copilot prompt support

Adds GitHub Copilot VS Code instruction and prompt files for ECC workflows, with VS Code prompt frontmatter/settings aligned to current docs and tests covering the surface.

Co-authored-by: Girish Kanjiyani <girish.kanjiyani5040@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.github/prompts/build-fix.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+agent: agent
+description: Systematically diagnose and fix build errors, type errors, or failing CI
+---
+
+# Build Error Resolution
+
+Work through the error systematically. Fix root causes — do not suppress warnings or skip checks.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Capture the full error
+Paste or describe the complete error output (not just the last line). Include:
+- Error message and stack trace
+- File and line number if shown
+- Build tool and command that failed
+
+### 2. Categorize the error
+
+| Category | Signals |
+|----------|---------|
+| **Type error** | `Type X is not assignable to Y`, `Property does not exist` |
+| **Import/module** | `Cannot find module`, `does not provide an export` |
+| **Syntax** | `Unexpected token`, `Expected ;` |
+| **Dependency** | `peer dep conflict`, `missing package`, `version mismatch` |
+| **Environment** | `command not found`, `ENOENT`, missing env var |
+| **Test failure** | `expected X but received Y`, assertion failure |
+| **Lint** | `ESLint`, `no-unused-vars`, `no-console` |
+
+### 3. Fix strategy
+
+- **Type errors** — fix the type, do not cast to `any` or `unknown` unless truly unavoidable.
+- **Import errors** — verify the export exists; check for circular dependencies.
+- **Dependency errors** — update lockfile, reconcile peer dep versions, do not delete `node_modules` as a first step.
+- **Test failures** — fix the implementation if behavior is wrong; fix the test only if the test itself is incorrect.
+- **Lint errors** — fix the code, do not add `// eslint-disable` unless the rule is genuinely inapplicable and you document why.
+
+### 4. Verify the fix
+After applying a fix, run the build/test command again. Confirm the specific error is resolved and no new errors were introduced.
+
+### 5. Check for related issues
+A single root cause often produces multiple error messages. After fixing, scan for similar patterns elsewhere in the codebase.
+
+## Rules
+- Never use `--no-verify` to skip hooks.
+- Never suppress type errors with `@ts-ignore` without a comment explaining why.
+- Never delete lock files without understanding why they are conflicting.

.github/prompts/code-review.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+agent: agent
+description: Comprehensive code quality and security review of the selected code or recent changes
+---
+
+# Code Review
+
+Review the selected code (or the current diff if nothing is selected) across four dimensions. Only report issues you are **confident about** — flag uncertainty explicitly rather than guessing.
+
+## Dimensions
+
+### 1. Security (CRITICAL — block ship if found)
+- Hardcoded secrets, tokens, API keys, passwords
+- Missing input validation or sanitization at system boundaries
+- SQL/NoSQL injection risk (string interpolation in queries)
+- XSS risk (unsanitized HTML output)
+- Auth/authz checks missing or client-side only
+- Sensitive data in logs or error messages exposed to clients
+- Missing rate limiting on public endpoints
+
+### 2. Code Quality (HIGH)
+- Mutation of existing state instead of creating new objects
+- Functions over 50 lines or files over 800 lines
+- Nesting deeper than 4 levels
+- Duplicated logic that should be extracted
+- Misleading or non-descriptive names
+
+### 3. Error Handling (HIGH)
+- Silently swallowed errors (`catch {}`, empty catch blocks)
+- Missing error handling at async boundaries
+- Errors returned but not checked by callers
+- User-facing error messages leaking internal details
+
+### 4. Test Coverage (MEDIUM)
+- Missing tests for new logic
+- Tests that only test happy paths (missing error/edge cases)
+- Assertions that always pass
+
+## Output Format
+
+For each issue found:
+
+```
+**[CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW]** — [File:Line if known]
+Issue: [What is wrong]
+Fix: [Concrete suggestion]
+```
+
+End with a summary:
+```
+## Summary
+- Critical: N
+- High: N
+- Medium: N
+- Approved to ship: yes / no (fix CRITICAL and HIGH first)
+```

.github/prompts/plan.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+agent: agent
+description: Create a phased implementation plan before writing any code
+---
+
+# Implementation Planner
+
+Before writing any code for this feature/task, produce a structured plan.
+
+## Steps
+
+1. **Clarify the goal** — restate the requirement in one sentence; flag any ambiguities.
+2. **Research first** — identify existing utilities, libraries, or patterns in the codebase that can be reused. Do not reinvent what already exists.
+3. **Identify dependencies** — list external packages, APIs, environment variables, or database changes needed.
+4. **Break into phases** — structure work as ordered phases, each independently shippable:
+   - Phase 1: Core data model / schema changes
+   - Phase 2: Business logic + unit tests
+   - Phase 3: API / integration layer + integration tests
+   - Phase 4: UI / consumer layer + E2E tests
+5. **Identify risks** — note anything that could block progress or cause regressions.
+6. **Define done** — list the exact acceptance criteria (tests passing, coverage ≥ 80%, no lint errors, docs updated).
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Goal
+[One-sentence summary]
+
+## Reuse Opportunities
+- [Existing utility/pattern]
+
+## Dependencies
+- [Package / API / env var]
+
+## Phases
+### Phase 1 — [Name]
+- [ ] Task A
+- [ ] Task B
+
+### Phase 2 — [Name]
+...
+
+## Risks
+- [Risk and mitigation]
+
+## Definition of Done
+- [ ] All tests pass (≥80% coverage)
+- [ ] No new lint errors
+- [ ] Docs updated if public API changed
+```
+
+Apply ECC coding standards throughout: immutable patterns, small focused files, explicit error handling.

.github/prompts/refactor.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+agent: agent
+description: Clean up dead code, reduce duplication, and simplify structure without changing behavior
+---
+
+# Refactor & Cleanup
+
+Improve the internal structure of the selected code without changing its observable behavior. All tests must pass before and after.
+
+## Before Starting
+- [ ] Confirm the test suite is passing.
+- [ ] Note the current coverage baseline.
+- [ ] Identify the scope: single function, file, or module?
+
+## Refactoring Targets
+
+### Dead Code Removal
+- Unused variables, imports, functions, and exports
+- Commented-out code blocks (delete, don't leave as comments)
+- Feature flags that are permanently enabled/disabled
+- Unreachable branches
+
+### Duplication Reduction
+- Repeated logic that can be extracted into a shared utility
+- Copy-pasted blocks differing only in a parameter (extract with that parameter)
+- Inline constants that appear in multiple places (extract to named constants)
+
+### Structure Improvements
+- Functions over 50 lines → break into smaller, named steps
+- Files over 800 lines → extract cohesive sub-modules
+- Nesting deeper than 4 levels → extract early-return guards or helper functions
+- Mixed concerns in one function → split into focused single-responsibility functions
+
+### Naming
+- Rename variables/functions whose names don't match their behavior
+- Replace magic numbers and strings with named constants
+- Align naming with the domain language used elsewhere in the codebase
+
+## Constraints
+- **No behavior changes** — refactoring is purely structural.
+- **One concern at a time** — do not mix refactoring with feature work or bug fixes.
+- **Keep tests green** — run the suite after each meaningful change.
+- **Don't add abstractions preemptively** — extract only what has already proven to be duplicated (rule of three).
+
+## Output
+After refactoring, summarize:
+- What was removed (dead code, duplication)
+- What was extracted (new utilities, constants)
+- What was renamed and why
+- Coverage before / after (should not decrease)

.github/prompts/security-review.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+agent: agent
+description: Deep security analysis — OWASP Top 10, secrets, auth, injection, and dependency risks
+---
+
+# Security Review
+
+Perform a thorough security analysis of the selected code or current branch changes.
+
+## Checklist
+
+### Secrets & Configuration
+- [ ] No hardcoded API keys, tokens, passwords, or private keys anywhere in source
+- [ ] All secrets loaded from environment variables or a secret manager
+- [ ] Required env vars validated at startup (fail fast if missing)
+- [ ] `.env` files excluded from version control
+
+### Input Validation & Injection
+- [ ] All user inputs validated and sanitized before use
+- [ ] Parameterized queries for every database operation (no string interpolation)
+- [ ] HTML output escaped or sanitized (XSS prevention)
+- [ ] File path inputs sanitized (path traversal prevention)
+- [ ] Command inputs sanitized (command injection prevention)
+
+### Authentication & Authorization
+- [ ] Auth checks enforced server-side — never trust client-supplied user IDs or roles
+- [ ] Session tokens are sufficiently random and expire appropriately
+- [ ] Sensitive operations protected by authz checks, not just authn
+- [ ] CSRF protection enabled for state-changing endpoints
+
+### Data Exposure
+- [ ] Error responses scrubbed of stack traces, internal paths, and sensitive data
+- [ ] Logs do not contain PII, tokens, or passwords
+- [ ] Sensitive fields excluded from API responses (no over-fetching)
+- [ ] Appropriate HTTP security headers set
+
+### Dependencies
+- [ ] No known vulnerable packages (run `npm audit` / `pip-audit` / `cargo audit`)
+- [ ] Dependency versions pinned or locked
+- [ ] No unused dependencies that increase attack surface
+
+### Infrastructure (if applicable)
+- [ ] Rate limiting on all public endpoints
+- [ ] HTTPS enforced; no HTTP fallback in production
+- [ ] Principle of least privilege for service accounts and IAM roles
+
+## Response Protocol
+
+If a **CRITICAL** issue is found:
+1. Stop and report immediately.
+2. Do not ship until fixed.
+3. Rotate any exposed secrets.
+4. Scan the rest of the codebase for similar patterns.
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Findings
+
+**[CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW]** — [category]
+Location: [file:line if known]
+Issue: [what is wrong and why it is dangerous]
+Fix: [concrete remediation]
+
+## Summary
+- Critical: N
+- High: N
+- Medium: N
+- Safe to ship: yes / no
+```

.github/prompts/tdd.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+agent: agent
+description: Test-driven development cycle — write the test first, then implement
+---
+
+# TDD Workflow
+
+Follow the RED → GREEN → IMPROVE cycle strictly. Do not write implementation code before a failing test exists.
+
+## Cycle
+
+### 1. RED — Write the failing test
+- Write a test that describes the desired behavior.
+- Run it. It **must fail** before continuing.
+- Use Arrange-Act-Assert structure.
+- Name tests descriptively: `returns empty array when no items match filter`, not `test itemFilter`.
+
+### 2. GREEN — Minimal implementation
+- Write the **minimum** code needed to make the test pass.
+- Do not over-engineer at this stage.
+- Run the test again — it **must pass**.
+
+### 3. IMPROVE — Refactor
+- Clean up duplication, naming, structure.
+- Keep all tests passing after each change.
+- Check coverage: target **≥ 80%**.
+
+## Test Layer Checklist
+
+- [ ] **Unit** — pure functions, utilities, isolated components
+- [ ] **Integration** — API endpoints, database operations, service boundaries
+- [ ] **E2E** — at least one critical user flow covered
+
+## Quality Gates
+
+Before marking the feature done:
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Coverage ≥ 80%
+- [ ] No skipped/commented-out tests
+- [ ] Edge cases covered: empty input, nulls, boundary values, error paths
+
+## Anti-patterns to Avoid
+
+- Writing implementation before tests
+- Testing implementation details instead of behavior
+- Mocking too deeply (prefer integration tests over excessive mocks)
+- Assertions that always pass (`expect(true).toBe(true)`)