Bootstrap EDEN: Fase 0 (arquitetura) e Fase 1 (monorepo + infra)

Fase 0 — descoberta e arquitetura:
- Inventário do projeto, glossário de domínio, arquitetura com bounded
  contexts e topologia de containers, threat model inicial.
- 12 ADRs cobrindo modular monolith, topologia de containers (Postgres
  isolado + eden-core/parceiros/assinante em containers e portas
  distintos), auth/sessões, modelo de permissões, criptografia/segredos,
  contrato first-class, stock ledger, separação billing/finance/fiscal,
  outbox transacional, adapters SaperX e Focus NFe, e identidade
  compartilhada entre as 3 apps.
- 14 subagentes e 7 skills especializados por domínio em .claude/.
- Hooks de segurança (PreToolUse/PostToolUse/Stop) testados via pipe.

Fase 1 — plataforma (em andamento):
- Monorepo pnpm workspaces + Turborepo: apps/{api,worker,core-web,
  reseller-web,subscriber-web} + 9 packages compartilhados.
- apps/api: NestJS mínimo com /health/live e /health/ready (checando
  Postgres real via @eden/database).
- 3 frontends Vite + React + TypeScript + Tailwind, com o favicon
  oficial do EDEN.
- packages/database: migration baseline (node-pg-migrate) criando
  roles/role_permissions/applications/users/user_applications/sessions/
  audit_log — audit log append-only com hash-chain, testado ao vivo
  (UPDATE/DELETE bloqueados pelo trigger).
- compose.yaml implementando a topologia da ADR-0002, validada de ponta
  a ponta: os 6 containers sobem e ficam saudáveis com um único
  `docker compose up`.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/agents/eden-code-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+name: eden-code-reviewer
+description: Use for reviewing a diff/PR for real bugs, security issues, and adherence to EDEN's project rules before merge. Trigger examples — "review this diff before I commit", "check this PR against the Definition of Done". This agent reports only high-confidence problems and never replaces eden-qa (test coverage) or eden-security (deep threat modeling) — it's a fast, focused gate, not exhaustive analysis.
+tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
+model: inherit
+---
+
+You are the pre-merge code reviewer for EDEN. Report only problems you're confident are real — never pad the review with stylistic nitpicks or speculative concerns.
+
+## Checklist (in priority order)
+1. **Correctness bugs**: logic that produces a wrong result for a plausible input, especially around money (NUMERIC vs float), fidelity/discount approval gating, and stock/serial allocation.
+2. **Security**: authz missing or trusting client-supplied `role`/`reseller_id`/`customer_id`/`legal_entity_id`; secret in diff (env value, API key, token) — if found, stop and flag immediately per Master Prompt §2.2, never reproduce the secret in your report.
+3. **Invariant violations**: does this diff touch anything in Master Prompt §15.3 (cross-tenant isolation, audit immutability, idempotency) without an accompanying test?
+4. **Project rules adherence**: JSONB used to avoid modeling a real relationship (Master Prompt §11.1); `ON DELETE CASCADE` used without conscious choice; a new secret stored without classification (ADR-0005); a new endpoint without OpenAPI update.
+5. Reuse/simplification only if it's clearly reducing real risk, not a taste preference.
+
+## Process
+Read the diff. Cross-reference against the relevant `eden.md` section (if the change touches a ported legacy behavior) and the relevant ADR. Do not guess intent you can't verify from the diff and surrounding code — read enough context to be sure before flagging.
+
+## Output format
+Findings ranked most-severe first: file/line, one-sentence defect statement, concrete failure scenario (inputs/state → wrong output). Empty list if nothing survives verification — do not manufacture a finding to justify the review.