chore: remove install README copy

[tatakaisun]

Summary
Closes #25

Removes the install-generated root README.md path by deleting the packaged static/README.md source file and removing the install-time copy step.

Why
The install README duplicates information already covered by the public docs and requires an extra filesystem copy/path resolution step during installation.

Changes
Removed the static/README.md file that was copied into the install root.
Removed the copySync(PACKAGE_ROOT/static/README.md, /README.md) step from mountHdb.
Added the docs link to harper help so users still have a discoverable documentation path.
Updated the mount_hdb unit test setup to drop the obsolete copySync stub.
Testing
npm run build
node --conditions=typestrip .\node_modules\mocha\bin\mocha unitTests\utility\mount_hdb.test.js
node .\dist\bin\harper.js help
npx prettier --check bin\harper.ts utility\mount_hdb.ts unitTests\utility\mount_hdb.test.js
git diff --check
Reference search for the old install README path and removed filesystem-structure content
Known Issues
None found.

[Ethan-Arrowood]

I'm in favor. And implementation looks good to me. But may need to consider if others agree with the principle of the change.

[heskew]

nit: /learn isn't docs?

[Ethan-Arrowood]

Good point. Could just send them to the base route / or /reference instead.

[kriszyp]

I thought this README.md was to help provide highly contextual information for this directory. If you are cwd'ed in ~/harper, and wondering what all the folders are for, this immediately tells you. That would take a while to figure out from sifting through docs, I would think, and not particularly convenient if you are just lsing around in a terminal?

[Ethan-Arrowood]

I think the argument previously discussed (maybe on a call) was that how realistic is it that someone navigates to a harper installation directory... without knowing its harper?

A. If they have no idea what Harper is, then the better question is what are they doing cd'ing around a machine with it installed
B. If they know what Harper is, and are cd'ing around an install, why wouldn't they navigate to our docs to better understand it? I don't think this file is doing all that much (its a few lines describing some directories and has no actionable follow up information).

All that said, I'm happy to keep the file. Then lets make it actually useful. Include links to docs and whatever. Beyond that, do we need this to be a file? Can it just be a string we write to a file? That goes back to the static file debate we've had before that I think landed with static files are generally okay.

[kriszyp]

If they know what Harper is, and are cd'ing around an install, why wouldn't they navigate to our docs to better understand it?

There are people that like terminals (CLIs are still wildly popular). And --help is generally mandatory UX (expecting a terminal user to read the docs and not have some level command line contextual guidance is generally considered poor UX; I think that is somewhat analogous here).

Then lets make it actually useful.

👍

[Ethan-Arrowood]

@tatakaisun instead of removing the file; can you update it to include more information such as links to common Harper resources?

[tatakaisun]

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll update the PR to keep the install README and make it more useful by adding links to common Harper resources and clearer contextual guidance.

[cb1kenobi]

I'm cool with this.

[cb1kenobi]

nit: I enjoy when lists of directories are sorted alphabetically.

[tatakaisun]

Addressed — sorted the directory list alphabetically in static/README.md.