feat(skills): add one-three-one-rule communication skill (#3797)

Adds a structured 1-3-1 decision-making framework as an optional skill.
Produces: one problem statement, three options with trade-offs, one
recommendation with definition of done and implementation plan.

Moved to optional-skills/ (niche communication framework, not broadly
needed by default). Improved description with clearer trigger conditions
and replaced implementation-specific example with a generic one.

Based on PR #1262 by Willardgmoore.

Co-authored-by: Willard Moore <willardgmoore@users.noreply.github.com>

optional-skills/communication/DESCRIPTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Communication and decision-making frameworks — structured response formats for proposals, trade-off analysis, and stakeholder-ready recommendations.

optional-skills/communication/one-three-one-rule/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+---
+name: one-three-one-rule
+description: >
+  Structured decision-making framework for technical proposals and trade-off analysis.
+  When the user faces a choice between multiple approaches (architecture decisions,
+  tool selection, refactoring strategies, migration paths), this skill produces a
+  1-3-1 format: one clear problem statement, three distinct options with pros/cons,
+  and one concrete recommendation with definition of done and implementation plan.
+  Use when the user asks for a "1-3-1", says "give me options", or needs help
+  choosing between competing approaches.
+version: 1.0.0
+author: Willard Moore
+license: MIT
+category: communication
+metadata:
+  hermes:
+    tags: [communication, decision-making, proposals, trade-offs]
+---
+
+# 1-3-1 Communication Rule
+
+Structured decision-making format for when a task has multiple viable approaches and the user needs a clear recommendation. Produces a concise problem framing, three options with trade-offs, and an actionable plan for the recommended path.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- The user explicitly asks for a "1-3-1" response.
+- The user says "give me options" or "what are my choices" for a technical decision.
+- A task has multiple viable approaches with meaningful trade-offs (architecture, tooling, migration strategy).
+- The user needs a proposal they can forward to a team or stakeholder.
+
+Do NOT use for simple questions with one obvious answer, debugging sessions, or tasks where the user has already decided on an approach.
+
+## Procedure
+
+1. **Problem** (one sentence)
+   - State the core decision or desired outcome in a single concise sentence.
+   - Focus on the *what*, not the *how* — no implementation details, tool names, or specific technologies.
+   - Keep it tight. If you need "and", you're describing two problems.
+
+2. **Options** (exactly three)
+   - Present three distinct, viable approaches labeled A, B, C.
+   - Each option gets a brief description, pros, and cons.
+   - Options should represent genuinely different strategies, not minor variations of the same approach.
+
+3. **Recommendation** (one option)
+   - State which option you recommend and why, based on the user's context and priorities.
+   - Be direct — this is your professional judgment, not a hedge.
+
+4. **Definition of Done**
+   - List the specific success criteria for the recommended option.
+   - These are concrete, verifiable outcomes — not vague aspirations.
+   - If the user picks a different option, revise this section to match.
+
+5. **Implementation Plan**
+   - Concrete steps to execute the recommended option.
+   - Include specific commands, tools, or actions where applicable.
+   - If the user picks a different option, revise this section to match.
+
+## Verification
+
+- Response has exactly one Problem sentence.
+- Response has exactly three Options (A, B, C) with pros and cons for each.
+- Response has a single Recommendation that picks one option with reasoning.
+- Definition of Done and Implementation Plan align with the recommended option.
+- If the user selects a different option, Recommendation, DoD, and Implementation Plan update accordingly.
+
+## Example
+
+User: "Give me a 1-3-1 for adding retry logic to our API client."
+
+Agent:
+
+**Problem:** API calls to external services fail intermittently under load and need graceful retry handling.
+
+**Options:**
+
+- **Option A: Exponential backoff with jitter in a shared utility.**
+  Pros: Simple, well-understood pattern; single implementation shared across all callers.
+  Cons: No circuit-breaking; callers still block during retries.
+
+- **Option B: Retry library (tenacity) as a decorator on each endpoint call.**
+  Pros: Configurable per-endpoint; built-in support for circuit breakers and rate limits.
+  Cons: Adds a dependency; decorator pattern can obscure control flow.
+
+- **Option C: Queue-based async retry with dead letter handling.**
+  Pros: Non-blocking; failed calls are tracked and replayable; scales well.
+  Cons: Significant complexity increase; requires a queue backend; overkill for low-volume services.
+
+**Recommendation:** Option A. The call volume doesn't justify queue infrastructure, and a shared utility with exponential backoff + jitter covers the failure mode cleanly without new dependencies.
+
+**Definition of Done:**
+- `api_retry()` utility handles transient HTTP errors (429, 502, 503, 504).
+- Retries up to 3 times with exponential backoff and jitter.
+- All external API calls route through the retry utility.
+- Logs each retry attempt with endpoint and attempt number.
+- Tests cover retry exhaustion, immediate success, and transient-then-success scenarios.
+
+**Implementation Plan:**
+1. Create `utils/api_retry.py` with configurable max retries, base delay, and retryable status codes.
+2. Add jitter using `random.uniform(0, base_delay)` to prevent thundering herd.
+3. Wrap existing API calls in `api_client.py` with the retry utility.
+4. Add unit tests mocking HTTP responses for each retry scenario.
+5. Verify under load with a simple stress test against a flaky endpoint mock.