Gap closure: feedback loops, traceability, and new /content-audit skill

- NEW /content-audit skill: GDD-specified content vs implemented content gap
  report with COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/EARLY/NOT STARTED per system
- balance-check: Fix & Verify Cycle phase (fix → re-verify → propagate-design-change)
- perf-profile: Scope & Timeline Decision phase for M/L effort optimizations
- playtest-report: Action Routing phase categorizes findings → design/balance/bugs/polish
- review-all-gdds: Phase 4 Cross-System Scenario Walkthrough (multi-system sequences)
- story-done: Test-Criterion Traceability (each AC mapped to a test, BLOCKING if >50% untested)
- code-review: ADR Compliance Check (ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION / ADR DRIFT / MINOR DEVIATION)
- setup-engine: upgrade subcommand (pre-upgrade API scan, migration plan, VERSION.md update)
- story-readiness: Asset References Check (verifies referenced asset paths exist)
- validate-assets.sh: invalid JSON now exits 1 (blocking); naming issues exit 0 (warning)
- workflow-catalog.yaml + sprint-plan: /scope-check wired into production phase

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/perf-profile/SKILL.md

@@ -84,6 +84,27 @@ When this skill is invoked:
 
 5. **Output the report** with a summary: top 3 hotspots, estimated headroom vs budget, and recommended next action.
 
+6. **Scope & Timeline Decision** — activate this phase only if any hotspot has Fix Effort rated M or L.
+
+   Present a summary of the significant-effort items:
+
+   > "The following optimizations require significant effort: [list titles and effort ratings from the Hotspots table]"
+
+   For each M/L item, ask the user to choose one of:
+
+   - **A) Implement the optimization** (estimated effort: [S/M/L] — proceed with fix now or schedule it)
+   - **B) Reduce feature scope to avoid the bottleneck** (run `/scope-check [feature]` to analyze the trade-offs)
+   - **C) Accept the performance hit and defer to Polish phase** (log it as a known issue)
+   - **D) Escalate to technical-director for an architectural decision** (the bottleneck warrants an ADR)
+
+   For choice B, remind the user:
+   > "Run `/scope-check [feature]` to see what simplifications are available without sacrificing player experience."
+
+   For choice D, note:
+   > "A bottleneck requiring architectural change should become a new Architecture Decision Record. Run `/architecture-decision` to capture the decision and its trade-offs."
+
+   If multiple items are deferred to Polish (choice C), record them in the report under a `### Deferred to Polish` section so they are not lost.
+
 ### Rules
 - Never optimize without measuring first — gut feelings about performance are unreliable
 - Recommendations must include estimated impact — "make it faster" is not actionable