feat: add support for storing access tokens in password-store

[afh]

I use passwordstore to store my passwords and was wondering whether you'd be willing to accept adding support for it.

N.B.: All code in this PR was written using claude-code, while I have tested that the changes work as expected I'd do another more thorough review if there is interest in this change.

Going over the code I wonder if support for password manager could be improved, e.g. by combining the --1password and --pass options into one, e.g. --password-manager 1password and whether in the config.yml op_ref and pass_ref could be combined into password_manager_ref given that the value has an identifying "scheme" prefix, e.g. op://.

What are your thoughts on this, @mexcool? 🙂

[mexcool]

Hello! Thanks for the contribution!

I think it's good! Password managers are good so happy to support more.

It looks good, just a couple of docs/help text to sync:

1. cmd/root.go — the auth priority chain in the root Long help lists 4 steps; needs pass inserted between 1Password and the config file.
2. cmd/auth/auth.go — says "supports three authentication methods" → should be four, with password-store listed.
3. cmd/auth/status.go — the Long says "(environment variable, 1Password, or config file)" — please add password-store.
4. cmd/auth/logout.go — Long says "Remove stored API key and 1Password references"; worth mentioning password-store (the code already clears it correctly via ClearConfig).
5. Tiny consistency thing: the README dropped "(most secure)" from the 1Password heading (👍), but login.go still calls 1Password "the most secure option" while the new method also says "never stored on disk." Could you reconcile the wording so it's not claiming two different things? I think we just want to remove it there too - or simply say password managers are the most secure :D

I'll consider the unifiying of the cli for password managers for a bit later as it's a breaking change and I'd want to test it with my agent first. same for the refs. but I think they're both a good idea

can you do the follow ups for the docs/help text?

[afh]

Thanks taking the time to review this draft and for the valuable feedback, @mexcool. I'm happy to hear that you see value in the proposed changes and have already followed up with the changes you requested. Is that what you had in mind?

[mexcool]

thanks!

[afh]

Thanks for reviewing, commented, approving, and merging the feature suggestion, @mexcool, very much appreciated 💯 Happy to see that 0.4.0 is also already published! 🎉