feat: IMAP mail sync with thread-to-contact matching (PRD §6.1)

Real IMAP connection via imapflow library:
- Connects to IMAP server (IMAPFlow, TLS on port 993)
- Fetches recent messages (configurable limit, default 20)
- Extracts: from, fromEmail, subject, date, snippet (200 chars)
- Thread-to-contact matching (PRD §6.1):
  1. Match sender email against persons table
  2. If no person match, extract domain and match against company.website
  3. Returns matchedCompany + matchedPerson for each email
- Audit-logged (action: crm.mailsync:imap)
- Zod validated (host, port, user, password, folder, limit)
- 502 on IMAP connection failure with detail
- 400 on validation failure

Tested: invalid creds → 502 'IMAP connection failed', missing host → 400

skills/interview-designer/references/design_rationale.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Expert Critique: Interview Designer Skill
+
+> **Simulated Review Panel**:
+> *   **Geoff Smart** (Author of "Who", Topgrading methodology)
+> *   **Lou Adler** (Founder of Performance-based Hiring)
+> *   **Daniel Kahneman** (Nobel Laureate, Behavioral Economics, Decision Noise Research)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Geoff Smart's Perspective: Only "Autopsy," No "Definition"
+*   **Comment**: "The starting point of this design is good (Forensic investigation), which aligns well with Topgrading's spirit—digging for truth. **However, you made a fatal error: the sequence is reversed.**"
+*   **Critique**: 
+    *   The current flow is `Resume Scan` → `Scorecard`. This is **reactive**. You're setting standards based on the candidate's resume, which is the trap of "creating positions around people."
+    *   **The A Method's** first step is always **Scorecard**—before looking at any resume, you must define the role's mission (Mission), outcomes (Outcomes), and competencies (Competencies).
+    *   **Risk**: Without an independent Scorecard first, your "investigation" becomes "nitpicking," not "validation of fit." You might prove they lied, but not that they can deliver.
+*   **Recommendation**: Mandate Step 0 as **"Define Success"**, not **"Scan Resume"**.
+
+## 2. Lou Adler's Perspective: Overemphasis on "Past," Neglecting "Future"
+*   **Comment**: "I see you're very enthusiastic about uncovering resume 'inflation.' That's interesting, but **can someone perform the job just because their resume is perfect?**"
+*   **Critique**:
+    *   Current `Torpedo Questions` mainly expose past lies.
+    *   **Performance-based Hiring** believes the best prediction is having candidates solve **future problems**.
+    *   **Gap**: Lacks **Project-based Problem Solving**. Beyond asking "how did you coordinate in the past," also ask "this is our new project, if you were responsible, what would you do in the first week?"
+*   **Recommendation**: Add **"Future Performance Simulation"** section.
+
+## 3. Daniel Kahneman's Perspective: Breeding Ground for Confirmation Bias
+*   **Comment**: "You're calling this skill 'Forensic' and throwing 'torpedoes.' This plants very strong **negative priming** in the interviewer's mind."
+*   **Critique**:
+    *   Once an interviewer enters the room with "this person might be lying" colored glasses, they'll unconsciously seek evidence to confirm this (Confirmation Bias), while ignoring the candidate's genuine highlights.
+    *   This is the source of **Noise**.
+*   **Recommendation**: Balance the mindset. Change "Torpedo" to **"Evidence Stress Test"**, and explicitly require seeking **"Green Signals"** simultaneously, not just red flags.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Comprehensive Optimization Recommendations (Action Plan)
+
+1.  **Architecture Adjustment (Re-order)**: 
+    *   `Step 1: Define Scorecard` (based on JD/business pain points, independent of resume)
+    *   `Step 2: Resume Forensic` (scan resume gaps based on Scorecard)
+2.  **Content Enhancement (Add Future Focus)**:
+    *   Add `Problem Solving Case` generation logic.
+3.  **Tone Correction (Neutrality)**:
+    *   Maintain sharpness, but remove "presumption of guilt" undertones. Goal is Truth-seeking, not Witch-hunting.