feat: OpenMesh 基础平台与 MD/PDF 转换技能

- 后端: coworker 智能体框架, WS API, 文件上传, 附件处理
- 前端: Open WebUI, 文件全量走 upload API (含 MD/TXT/JSON 等文本类)
- 技能: md-to-office (pandoc + wkhtmltopdf)
- 修复: 上传文件路径丢失, Agent 搜索浪费, 输出文件跑到 uploads/
- 打包: PyInstaller one-dir, 预打包 pandoc/wkhtmltopdf/chromium

coworker/personas/builtin/security/skills/secret-scan/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+name: secret-scan
+description: Hunt committed secrets with gitleaks and drive safe rotation
+---
+Find committed credentials and get them rotated and removed — without ever exposing them
+further yourself.
+
+ABSOLUTE RULE: never print a secret's value — not in output, notes, todo items, commits,
+or PRs. Refer to every hit as "<kind> in <file>:<line> (commit <short-sha>)".
+
+1. Check the tool: `gitleaks version`. If it's missing, do NOT skip this scan and do not
+   stop the review — ask for it with `request_tool("gitleaks", …)`. If the user declines,
+   or no pinned build exists for their platform, fall back to step 2b and say in your
+   report that the sweep was manual.
+2. Scan working tree AND history — history matters most: a secret deleted in HEAD is still
+   live in every clone, and it is the hit users are most surprised by.
+   a. With gitleaks:
+      `gitleaks detect --source . --report-format json --report-path /tmp/gitleaks.json`
+   b. Without it, do the same job by hand, and say so:
+      - working tree: `git grep -nIE '(api[_-]?key|secret|token|password|BEGIN [A-Z ]*PRIVATE KEY|AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16}|sk_(live|test)_[0-9a-zA-Z]{16,}|xox[baprs]-)'`
+      - history, including files deleted since: `git log -p --all -S 'AKIA' --pickaxe-all`
+        and `git log --diff-filter=D --name-only --pretty=format:%h -- '*.env*' '*credential*' '*secret*'`,
+        then read the removed contents with `git show <sha>^:<path>`.
+      - Pipe anything you read through a redactor rather than into your transcript, e.g.
+        `sed -E "s/[A-Za-z0-9_\\-]{16,}/[REDACTED]/g"` — the no-printing rule still applies.
+3. Triage each hit by reading its context:
+   - Real credential, test fixture, or example placeholder? Say which and why.
+   - For real ones: what does it grant access to, and is it plausibly still valid?
+4. For every real secret, in this order:
+   a. ROTATE first — tell the user exactly where to revoke/rotate it (the provider's
+      console page or CLI command). Rotation beats removal: history rewrite without
+      rotation is false comfort.
+   b. Remove it from the code: move to env vars or the project's secret store, matching
+      how this codebase already handles configuration.
+   c. Prevent recurrence: add/extend `.gitignore` for local secret files and offer a
+      `.gitleaks.toml` baseline plus a pre-commit hook.
+   d. History purge (git filter-repo/BFG) is DESTRUCTIVE and rewrites shared history —
+      describe the trade-off and only proceed if the user explicitly asks.
+5. Deliver: a hit list (kind · location · verdict · rotation status), the cleanup
+   branch/PR, and the prevention setup you added or recommend.

coworker/personas/builtin/security/skills/security-fix-pr/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+name: security-fix-pr
+description: Turn triaged security findings into focused, reviewable fix PRs
+---
+Package security fixes so a busy reviewer can approve them with confidence.
+
+1. One PR per theme (e.g. "parameterize SQL in the reports module"), never a mixed
+   security dump. Small diffs get reviewed; big ones get postponed.
+2. Branch naming: `security/<theme>` from the repo's default branch. Follow the repo's
+   existing commit-message style.
+3. Every fix commit carries its test: add or extend one that fails without the fix,
+   in the repo's existing test layout and idiom. If testing a fix isn't practical,
+   say so in the PR body instead of skipping silently.
+4. PR body structure (keep it tight):
+   - What was wrong, in plain language, with severity and why it matters HERE (one or
+     two sentences of reachability/impact, not scanner boilerplate).
+   - What the fix does, and what it deliberately does not change.
+   - How it was verified (test names, commands run).
+   - NEVER include secret values, exploit payloads, or step-by-step attack recipes in
+     a public PR — describe the class of issue instead.
+5. If the GitHub connector is available, open the PR with it; otherwise prepare the
+   branch and hand the user the exact push/PR commands.
+6. Fixing is yours; MERGING is the team's. Never merge your own security PR — deliver
+   it and summarize what a reviewer should scrutinize.

coworker/personas/builtin/security/skills/semgrep-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+name: semgrep-review
+description: Run a semgrep scan and turn findings into triaged, contextual fixes
+---
+Run a static-analysis pass with semgrep and own the findings end to end.
+
+1. Check the tool: `semgrep --version`. If it's missing, ask for it with
+   `request_tool("semgrep", …)` rather than skipping the pass. If the user declines,
+   continue with a targeted manual review — read the routes/handlers, the auth and
+   session code, every query built by string concatenation, deserialization, and
+   outbound requests built from user input — and say in your report that the static
+   pass was manual, so the user knows the coverage is narrower than a full scan.
+   Note that community semgrep rules miss whole classes (e.g. SQL built through a
+   project's own DB wrapper), so reading the code is worth doing even when it runs.
+2. Scan the repo (from its root):
+   `semgrep scan --config auto --json --quiet -o /tmp/semgrep.json`
+   Use `--config auto` unless the repo carries its own rules (`.semgrep.yml`,
+   `semgrep.yml`) — prefer the repo's own configuration when present.
+3. Parse the JSON and triage EVERY finding — do not echo the raw report:
+   - Read the flagged code and enough surrounding context to judge reachability.
+   - Is the tainted input attacker-controlled or internal? Is there an upstream guard?
+   - Rate: critical / high / medium / low / noise, with a one-line justification each.
+4. Fix what's real, highest severity first:
+   - Match the codebase's own conventions (its validation helpers, escaping utilities,
+     parameterized-query style) — read neighboring code before writing the fix.
+   - Add or extend a test that fails without the fix where the test harness makes that
+     reasonable.
+   - Group fixes by theme (one branch per theme), never one giant mixed diff.
+5. For findings you judge noise, say WHY (e.g. constant input, dead code, framework
+   already escapes) — never silently drop them, and never add ignore rules to make the
+   scanner quiet without agreement.
+6. Deliver: a short findings table (severity · location · verdict · action) and the
+   fix branches/PRs. If the repo has no semgrep config, offer to commit a starter
+   `.semgrep.yml` pinned to the rulesets that mattered here.