Background
Suppose we have an Ordinary Least Squares model where we have $k$ coefficients in our regression model, $$\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{X}\mathbf{\beta} + \mathbf{\epsilon}$$
where $\mathbf{\beta}$ is an $(k\times1)$ vector of coefficients, $\mathbf{X}$ is the design matrix defined by
$$\mathbf{X} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & x_{11} & x_{12} & \dots & x_{1\;(k-1)} \\ 1 & x_{21} & \dots & & \vdots \\ \vdots & & \ddots & & \vdots \\ 1 & x_{n1} & \dots & \dots & x_{n\;(k-1)} \end{pmatrix}$$ and the errors are IID normal, $$\mathbf{\epsilon} \sim \mathcal{N}\left(\mathbf{0},\sigma^2 \mathbf{I}\right) \;.$$
We minimize the sum-of-squared-errors by setting our estimates for $\mathbf{\beta}$ to be $$\mathbf{\hat{\beta}}= (\mathbf{X^T X})^{-1}\mathbf{X}^T \mathbf{y}\;. $$
An unbiased estimator of $\sigma^2$ is $$s^2 = \frac{\left\Vert \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{\hat{y}}\right\Vert ^2}{n-p}$$ where $\mathbf{\hat{y}} \equiv \mathbf{X} \mathbf{\hat{\beta}}$ (ref).
The covariance of $\mathbf{\hat{\beta}}$ is given by $$\operatorname{Cov}\left(\mathbf{\hat{\beta}}\right) = \sigma^2 \mathbf{C}$$ where $\mathbf{C}\equiv(\mathbf{X}^T\mathbf{X})^{-1}$ (ref) .
Question
How can I prove that for $\hat\beta_i$, $$\frac{\hat{\beta}_i - \beta_i} {s_{\hat{\beta}_i}} \sim t_{n-k}$$ where $t_{n-k}$ is a t-distribution with $(n-k)$ degrees of freedom, and the standard error of $\hat{\beta}_i$ is estimated by $s_{\hat{\beta}_i} = s\sqrt{c_{ii}}$.
My attempts
I know that for $n$ random variables sampled from $x\sim\mathcal{N}\left(\mu, \sigma^2\right)$, you can show that $$\frac{\bar{x}-\mu}{s/\sqrt{n}} \sim t_{n-1} $$ by rewriting the LHS as $$\frac{ \left(\frac{\bar x - \mu}{\sigma/\sqrt{n}}\right) } {\sqrt{s^2/\sigma^2}}$$ and realizing that the numertor is a standard normal distribution, and the denominator is square root of a Chi-square distribution with df=(n-1) and divided by (n-1) (ref). And therefore it follows a t-distribution with df=(n-1) (ref).
I was unable to extend this proof to my question...
Any ideas? I'm aware of this question, but they don't explicitly prove it, they just give a rule of thumb, saying "each predictor costs you a degree of freedom".