Windsurf + Aider targets, MCP server, and demo placement (#33)

Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing
the multi-platform story.

Windsurf + Aider:
- build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules,
  trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`).
  Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider).
- install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider ->
  .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies.
- One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity.

MCP server (new content type):
- mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills,
  search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp).
  Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents
  client config.

Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF;
recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports +
install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated.


Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

exports/aider/pm-figma/figma-design-review/figma-design-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# Figma Design Review Skill
+
+Runs a structured PM design review — checking that a design meets product requirements, covers all user flows, and is ready for engineering. This is a requirements-and-outcomes review, not an aesthetic critique.
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+- **Design description or screen summary**
+- **Original requirements** (PRD snippet, ticket, or acceptance criteria)
+- **User flow being designed**
+- **Review stage** (concept / mid-fidelity / pre-handoff final)
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### 1. Review Header
+Feature, review stage, reviewed by, date.
+**Overall status:** Approved / Approved with changes / Needs revision
+
+### 2. Requirements Coverage Check
+
+| Requirement | Covered? | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| [Requirement from PRD] | Yes/No/Partial | [Specific observation] |
+
+Missing coverage summary: [Requirements not addressed — must resolve before approval]
+
+### 3. User Flow Completeness
+
+| Flow step | Designed? | Issues |
+|---|---|---|
+| [Step] | Yes/No/Partial | [Issue] |
+| Error state | Yes/No | |
+| Empty state | Yes/No | |
+| Loading state | Yes/No | |
+
+### 4. PM Concerns
+
+**[Concern] — Blocking / Should fix / Nice to fix**
+- What: [Specific observation]
+- Why it matters: [Business or user impact — not aesthetic preference]
+- Suggested resolution: [What PM wants to see]
+
+### 5. Open Questions
+
+| Question | Owner | Needed by |
+|---|---|---|
+| [Question] | Designer/Eng/PM | [Date] |
+
+### 6. Approval Decision
+Approved / Approved with changes (list) / Needs revision (focus area + next review date)
+
+## Quality Checks
+- [ ] Every requirement assessed
+- [ ] All flow states checked (error, empty, loading)
+- [ ] Concerns are outcome-focused not aesthetic
+- [ ] Open questions have owners
+- [ ] Approval status is explicit
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not review a design without a list of requirements to check against — always ask for the PRD, design brief, or acceptance criteria first
+- [ ] Do not give a vague approval status — the decision must be explicitly "approved", "approved with conditions", or "not approved"
+- [ ] Do not conflate requirements gaps with UX concerns — track them separately so engineers and designers can act independently
+- [ ] Do not raise concerns without suggesting what information is needed to resolve them
+- [ ] Do not skip open questions — unresolved assumptions at review time become bugs after engineering handoff
+
+## Example Trigger Phrases
+- "Review this Figma design against the requirements"
+- "Do a PM design review for [feature]"
+- "Check if this design meets the product spec"
+- "Is this design ready to hand off to engineering?"
+- "What is missing from this design before we can build it?"