feat(install): add Swival auto-registration

[jedisct1]

If a Swival config is found, automatically register codedb there.

[justrach]

@codex review this PR for security issues — specifically the install script changes in register_swival(). Check for injection risks, file permission issues, or anything that could be exploited.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 17d7af88b6

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[justrach]

Thanks for the Swival integration work.

Before merge I still want the two install-script hardening fixes from the review thread:

• escape or otherwise safely serialize codedb_bin before writing it into the TOML command field
• create/update the Swival config with restrictive permissions instead of relying on the default umask-derived mode

I know similar raw writes exist elsewhere, but this PR is extending installer registration in a security-sensitive path, so I do not want to add another unescaped write or broad-permission config creation here. Once those two points are addressed, please tag @codex review again.

[jedisct1]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[jedisct1]

Thank you @justrach !

I wanted to stay consistent with the existing code, but indeed, this is not a good direction.

Your suggestions have been applied.

Thanks!