refactor: style-rule cleanup in isolated files (plan 016, partial)

[DavertMik]

Plan 016 — Mechanical style batch (PARTIAL — see deferral)

Plan 016 is the run-last style sweep (private-method reordering, types-at-end, ternary/conditional-spread removal across ~20 core files). Its own dependency: "run last to avoid merge churn — pure-move reorderings conflict with every other diff."

All six of this session's refactor PRs (#88–#93) plus #85/#86/#87 are still open and touch nearly every file 016 targets. Doing the reordering now would conflict with all of them. So this PR does only the items in files that no open PR touches, and defers the rest until the batch merges.

Done here (non-conflicting)

• fisherman-tools.ts: value === null || value === undefined → value == null (kept == null rather than !value because 0/''/false are valid field values).
• quartermaster.ts: 4 interfaces moved to end of file (CLAUDE.md "types at end"); outputPath('a11y') instead of join(configParser.getOutputDir(), 'a11y'); dropped the existsSync guard (mkdirSync recursive tolerates an existing dir) and inlined ensureDirectory away.

Deferred (until #85–#93 merge)

Private-method reordering, type-moves, and the ternary/conditional-spread/one-liner cleanups in tester, tools, provider, pilot, driller, conversation, planner, researcher, captain, experience-tracker, experience-compactor, state-manager, explorer, etc. — every one of those files is modified by an open PR, so 016's reorderings must wait to avoid conflicts.

Verification

• bun test tests/unit → 764 pass / 0 fail; bun test tests/integration/ → 63 pass / 0 fail.
• bun run lint → clean; tsc no new errors in the touched files.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

Explorbot Self-Regression

Commit 99bb0f1 · run

Scenario	Result	Attempts	Duration
basic (native)	PASS	1/3	9m
experience: control	OK — failed as expected	1/1	2m
experience: seeded	PASS	1/3	1m

Attempt details

• basic (native) attempt 1 — PASS: login evidence: PASS (post-login plan=true, post-login research=true); research: PASS (files=7, wellFormed=true, keywords=7/3); scenarios: PASS (tests=7/5, features=4/3); tests passed: PASS (5 passed, 0 failed (reporter: 5 passed, 0 failed))
• experience: control attempt 1 — PASS: control: OK — failed as expected (0 passed, 1 failed)
• experience: seeded attempt 1 — PASS: seeded: PASS (1 passed, 0 failed)

---

Session analysis — basic (native):

Session Analysis

The issue tracking feature set was exercised across 5 test scenarios covering create, search, filter by label, filter by status, and view details. All core flows completed successfully with proper UI feedback. The only notable observation is inconsistent logging in one test that does not affect the outcome.

Coverage

• Pages: /issues, /issues/{id}
• Features: Create issue, Keyword search, Label filter, Status filter, Issue detail view

What works

• Issue creation — ET-1 Create new issue
• Keyword search — ET-2 Search for issue by keyword
• Label filtering — ET-3 Filter issues by label
• Status filtering — ET-4 Filter issues by status
• Issue detail view — ET-5 Open and view issue details