chore: add project documentation, issue templates, and pre-commit configuration

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+name: "🐛 Bug Report"
+description: Report a reproducible bug or unexpected behavior in Heimdall.
+title: "[BUG] <short description>"
+labels: ["bug", "needs-triage"]
+assignees: []
+body:
+  - type: markdown
+    attributes:
+      value: |
+        Thank you for taking the time to file a bug report. Please fill out all required fields so we can reproduce and fix the issue quickly.
+
+  - type: dropdown
+    id: component
+    attributes:
+      label: Affected Component
+      description: Which part of Heimdall is affected?
+      options:
+        - Dashboard (Request List)
+        - Request Inspector
+        - Collections / Blueprints
+        - Authentication (LDAP/SSO)
+        - API Routes (backend)
+        - Database / Prisma
+        - Docker / Deployment
+        - Other
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: description
+    attributes:
+      label: Bug Description
+      description: A clear and concise description of what the bug is.
+      placeholder: "When I click 'Execute' on an approved request, the response is not displayed in the Inspector."
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: reproduction
+    attributes:
+      label: Steps to Reproduce
+      description: Exact steps to reproduce the behavior.
+      placeholder: |
+        1. Log in as a REQUESTER
+        2. Create a new request to https://example.com
+        3. Log in as an APPROVER and approve the request
+        4. Log back in as REQUESTER and click "Execute"
+        5. Open the Inspector — response tab is blank
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: expected
+    attributes:
+      label: Expected Behavior
+      description: What did you expect to happen?
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: actual
+    attributes:
+      label: Actual Behavior
+      description: What actually happened? Include any error messages or screenshots.
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: dropdown
+    id: auth-mode
+    attributes:
+      label: Authentication Mode
+      options:
+        - LDAP (with MOCK_LDAP=true)
+        - LDAP (real server)
+        - SSO (OIDC)
+        - Not applicable
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: dropdown
+    id: database
+    attributes:
+      label: Database Backend
+      options:
+        - SQLite (default)
+        - MySQL
+        - PostgreSQL
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: input
+    id: node-version
+    attributes:
+      label: Node.js Version
+      placeholder: "e.g. 20.11.0"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: logs
+    attributes:
+      label: Relevant Logs
+      description: Paste any relevant browser console errors, server logs (structured JSON output), or network errors.
+      render: shell
+
+  - type: checkboxes
+    id: checklist
+    attributes:
+      label: Pre-submission Checklist
+      options:
+        - label: I have searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate.
+          required: true
+        - label: I have tested this on the latest `main` branch.
+          required: true
+        - label: I have included all reproduction steps.
+          required: true

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+blank_issues_enabled: false
+contact_links:
+  - name: 💬 General Discussion
+    url: https://github.com/LERUfic/Heimdall/discussions
+    about: For questions, ideas, and general conversation about Heimdall.
+  - name: 📖 Documentation
+    url: https://github.com/LERUfic/Heimdall/blob/main/README.md
+    about: Read the README before filing an issue — your answer may already be there.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+name: "✨ Feature Request"
+description: Propose a new feature or enhancement to Heimdall.
+title: "[FEAT] <short description>"
+labels: ["enhancement", "needs-triage"]
+assignees: []
+body:
+  - type: markdown
+    attributes:
+      value: |
+        Thank you for suggesting an improvement to Heimdall. Please be as specific as possible so we can evaluate and prioritize your request.
+
+  - type: dropdown
+    id: component
+    attributes:
+      label: Target Component
+      description: Which area of Heimdall would this feature affect?
+      options:
+        - Dashboard (Request List)
+        - Request Inspector (Detail Panel)
+        - Collections / Blueprints
+        - Authentication (LDAP/SSO)
+        - API Routes (backend)
+        - Audit Logging
+        - Database / Prisma Schema
+        - Docker / Deployment
+        - Developer Tooling (tests, CI)
+        - New Feature / Standalone
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: problem
+    attributes:
+      label: Problem Statement
+      description: |
+        What problem does this feature solve? Describe the current limitation or pain point.
+      placeholder: "Currently, there is no way to add comments or notes to a request. As an APPROVER, I want to leave feedback when rejecting a request so that the REQUESTER understands why it was denied."
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: solution
+    attributes:
+      label: Proposed Solution
+      description: Describe the feature or change you'd like to see.
+      placeholder: |
+        Add a "Rejection Reason" text field to the approval/rejection flow.
+        The reason should be:
+        - Stored in the database (new `rejectionReason` column on `HttpRequest`)
+        - Displayed in the Request Inspector under a new "Feedback" tab
+        - Included in the structured audit log output
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: alternatives
+    attributes:
+      label: Alternatives Considered
+      description: Have you considered any alternative approaches?
+      placeholder: "Alternatively, we could use the existing `response` field to store rejection notes, but that would pollute execution data."
+
+  - type: dropdown
+    id: priority
+    attributes:
+      label: Priority (your estimate)
+      options:
+        - Low — Nice to have
+        - Medium — Meaningfully improves UX or security
+        - High — Blocking significant use cases
+    validations:
+      required: true
+
+  - type: textarea
+    id: acceptance
+    attributes:
+      label: Acceptance Criteria
+      description: How would we know this feature is complete? List measurable outcomes.
+      placeholder: |
+        - [ ] APPROVER can type a reason when rejecting a request
+        - [ ] Reason is persisted to the database
+        - [ ] REQUESTER sees the reason in the Inspector's "Feedback" tab
+        - [ ] Reason is included in the structured JSON audit log
+        - [ ] Unit tests cover the new API endpoint
+
+  - type: checkboxes
+    id: checklist
+    attributes:
+      label: Pre-submission Checklist
+      options:
+        - label: I have searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate.
+          required: true
+        - label: This feature aligns with Heimdall's role as a security governance layer.
+          required: true

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+## Summary
+
+<!-- A concise description of what this PR does. -->
+
+## Motivation
+
+<!-- Why is this change needed? Link the related issue. -->
+
+Closes #<!-- issue number -->
+
+## Type of Change
+
+<!-- Mark the relevant option with an [x]. -->
+
+- [ ] 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
+- [ ] ✨ New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
+- [ ] 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change unexpectedly)
+- [ ] ♻️ Refactor (no behavior change, code restructuring)
+- [ ] 🧪 Test coverage improvement
+- [ ] 📖 Documentation update
+- [ ] 🔧 Chore / tooling
+
+---
+
+## Changes Made
+
+<!-- List the specific files and changes at a high level. -->
+
+**Backend / API:**
+-
+
+**Frontend / UI:**
+-
+
+**Tests:**
+-
+
+**Other:**
+-
+
+---
+
+## Testing
+
+### Automated Checks
+
+- [ ] `npm run lint` passes with **0 errors**
+- [ ] `npm run test:coverage` passes — **all tests passing**
+- [ ] Coverage has **not decreased** from baseline (≥90% statements, ≥80% branches)
+
+### Manual Verification
+
+<!-- Describe manual steps you took to verify the changes work as expected. -->
+
+1.
+2.
+
+### Screenshots (if UI changes)
+
+<!-- Attach before/after screenshots for any visual changes. -->
+
+---
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] My branch name follows the project convention (e.g., `feat/`, `fix/`, `test/`)
+- [ ] My commits follow the **Conventional Commits** format (`feat:`, `fix:`, etc.)
+- [ ] I have added/updated tests for any new or changed behavior
+- [ ] I have added/updated documentation where applicable
+- [ ] I have not introduced any `as any` type assertions (use `as unknown as T`)
+- [ ] I have not committed `.env` or secrets
+- [ ] I have linked the relevant issue in the "Closes #" section above
+
+---
+
+## Notes for Reviewers
+
+<!-- Anything specific you'd like the reviewer to pay attention to? -->