Release v1.0.0 — concept-prototype/vertical-slice split, workflow restructure, polish (#50)

* Add /vertical-slice skill, prototype overhaul, and workflow integration

- Add /vertical-slice skill for pre-production validation (Phase 4 gate)
- Overhaul /prototype skill with two-mode design: concept prototype (Phase 1)
  vs vertical slice (Phase 4), with clearer differentiation and higher standards for VS
- Update prototyper agent to own both prototype and vertical-slice workflows
- Add prototype-report.md and vertical-slice-report.md output templates
- Update WORKFLOW-GUIDE, quick-start, skills-reference, agent-coordination-map,
  and skill-flow-diagrams to fully integrate both skills into the 7-phase pipeline
- Remove orphaned empty quick-prototype/ directory

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

* sync v1 counts + polish

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

* Add entity inventory flow, relax vertical-slice gate, improve UX authoring prompts

- /asset-spec: new Phase 0b entity & screen inventory when no argument and no
  existing inventory — reads GDDs/art-bible, proposes categorized list, writes
  design/assets/entity-inventory.md collaboratively
- /asset-spec: entity/character target falls back to inline user description
  when no source doc exists, rather than failing
- /gate-check: vertical slice changed from blocking to CONCERNS-only when
  absent; built-but-broken slice still fails; adds entity inventory as gate artifact
- /ux-design: convert inline approval prompts to AskUserQuestion for structured
  option capture at key authoring decision points
- workflow-catalog.yaml: entity-inventory step added to pre-production; UX spec
  min_count raised to 3; vertical-slice and prototype marked required: false with
  updated descriptions
- .gitignore: exclude marrow/ eval tooling directory

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

* Add missing AskUserQuestion widgets to 7 skills

Audit found 11 decision points across 7 skills where structured option
prompts were missing — using plain text, auto-selection, or no gate at all.

Skills patched:
- create-epics: per-epic approval + producer CONCERNS verdict
- sprint-plan: producer CONCERNS verdict with scope/timeline options
- milestone-review: AT RISK / OFF TRACK producer verdicts require acknowledgement
- retrospective: existing-retro handling converted from plain text [A]/[B]
- quick-design: classification confirmation + draft approve/revise/redirect
- tech-debt add mode: category (6 options) + effort (S/M/L/XL) structured capture
- regression-suite: no-arg mode selection instead of silent auto-detect
- hotfix: severity confirmation gate before workflow begins

Also added AskUserQuestion to allowed-tools headers for retrospective,
quick-design, tech-debt, regression-suite, and hotfix.

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

* Prep v1 stable: fix WORKFLOW-GUIDE counts, stale agent names, and skill model fields

- WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md: correct agent count (48→49), skill count (66/68→73),
  add 6 missing skills to Appendix B, fix Creative category count (2→4),
  replace 3 non-existent agent names with correct ue-*/unity-* specialists,
  add missing godot-csharp/gdextension specialists to hierarchy,
  fix production/stories/ paths → production/epics/
- coordination-rules.md: replace "not yet used" with opt-in env var note
- quick-start.md: rename duplicate "Validate the concept" label → "Prototype the mechanic"
- skill-flow-diagrams.md: remove duplicate legacy UX pipeline section
- All 62 skills missing model: field now have explicit model: sonnet

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

* fix: comprehensive skill audit — consistency, UX, and flow gaps

Two-pass audit fixing ~35 bugs across 41 files.

Pre-production flow:
- Brainstorm next-steps split into Path A (design-first) and Path B
  (prototype-first) — eliminates "prototype after architecture" confusion
- /architecture-review added to pre-production flow in brainstorm and
  create-architecture handoffs
- gate-check traceability check corrected to requirements-traceability.md
- dev-story TR registry error now points to /architecture-review (not /create-epics)
- start now writes production/stage.txt on first onboarding

AskUserQuestion gaps filled:
- balance-check, code-review, hotfix, day-one-patch, consistency-check
  all gain closing widgets and/or missing allowed-tools declarations
- hotfix git branch creation now requires user confirmation
- sprint-plan review-mode setup moved to Phase 0 (before gates run)
- team-combat gains architecture→implementation approval gate
- design-review APPROVED path consolidated from 3 widgets to 1 multiSelect

All 9 team-* skills:
- Phase 0 review-mode resolution added (solo/lean/full now respected)
- team-audio output path fixed (design/gdd/ → design/audio/)
- team-level final doc compilation delegated to level-designer subagent
- team-narrative localization-lead added to composition list
- team-qa sprint path fixed (flat files, not directories)
- team-release NO-GO override captures written justification
- team-live-ops Cancel verdict now explicitly BLOCKED

Other fixes:
- Art bible path standardized to design/art/art-bible.md (3 wrong refs)
- AD-PHASE-GATE added to lean-mode skip list in director-gates.md
- design-system duplicate 5d heading fixed; skeleton decline path added;
  mandatory agent spawns now respect review mode
- story-readiness acceptance criteria thresholds now type-aware
- create-stories gains multi-ADR and no-ADR handling guidance
- consistency-check creates docs/consistency-failures.md on first run
- retrospective frontmatter bash injection replaced with explicit Bash call
- smoke-check ls -t gains PowerShell fallback
- Conventional Commits format documented in coding-standards.md
- gate-check: ADR acceptance gate, QA plan check, chain-of-verification
  tool-action requirement all added

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

* fix: expose --review flag in argument-hints for all team-* skills

All 9 team-* skills already implement Phase 0 review-mode resolution
internally (full/lean/solo), but none advertised [--review full|lean|solo]
in their argument-hint. Users had no way to discover the per-run override.

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

* docs: add SECURITY.md with coordinated disclosure policy

Defines scope, reporting process (GitHub private vulnerability reporting),
contributor security guidelines for hooks/skills/agents, and 90-day
coordinated disclosure timeline.

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

* docs: add CONTRIBUTING.md with framework contribution guidelines

Covers what PRs are welcome, skill/hook/agent technical requirements,
the collaborative principle, testing expectations, commit format,
and platform compatibility requirements.

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

* docs: add v1.0.0-beta → v1.0 upgrade section to UPGRADING.md

Documents the 17 commits since the beta tag: new /vertical-slice gate,
entity inventory flow in /map-systems, AskUserQuestion widgets across
7 skills, --review flag exposure on team-* skills, bug fixes
(#21, #36, #42, #43, #45), and the new CONTRIBUTING.md and SECURITY.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/architecture-review/SKILL.md

@@ -369,12 +369,17 @@ The GDD should be revised before its system enters implementation.
 If no revision flags are found, write: "No GDD revision flags — all GDD assumptions
 are consistent with verified engine behaviour."
 
-Ask: "Should I flag these GDDs for revision in the systems index?"
-- If yes: update the relevant systems' Status field to "Needs Revision"
-  and add a short inline note in the adjacent Notes/Description column explaining the conflict.
-  Ask for approval before writing.
-  (Do NOT use parentheticals like "Needs Revision (Architecture Feedback)" — other skills
-  match the exact string "Needs Revision" and parentheticals break that match.)
+Before asking, display the proposed change inline — show the current systems-index row for each flagged GDD and the proposed updated row side by side so the user can see exactly what will change.
+
+Then use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- "I found [N] GDD revision flag(s). May I update the systems index?"
+  - [A] Yes — apply all [N] updates to the systems index now
+  - [B] Show me the full diff first, then ask again
+  - [C] No — leave the systems index unchanged for now
+
+If [A]: apply the updates. Status field must be exactly `Needs Revision` — no parentheticals
+(other skills match that exact string and parentheticals break the match).
+If [B]: display the complete proposed systems-index section, then re-ask with `AskUserQuestion`.
 
 ---
 
@@ -459,8 +464,10 @@ Use `AskUserQuestion` for the write approval:
 
 ### RTM Output (rtm mode only)
 
-For `rtm` mode, additionally ask: "May I write the full Requirements Traceability
-Matrix to `docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md`?"
+For `rtm` mode, use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- "May I write the full Requirements Traceability Matrix?"
+  - [A] Yes — write to `docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md`
+  - [B] Not yet — show me the full RTM data first, then ask again
 
 RTM file format:
 
@@ -600,16 +607,28 @@ After completing the review and writing approved files, present:
 
 1. **Immediate actions**: List the top 3 ADRs to create (highest-impact gaps first,
    Foundation layer before Feature layer)
-2. **Gate guidance**: "When all blocking issues are resolved, run `/gate-check
-   pre-production` to advance"
+2. **Pre-gate checklist**: Check whether these exist via Glob and mark each ✅ or ❌:
+   - `tests/unit/` and `tests/integration/` directories — if ❌: run `/test-setup`
+   - `.github/workflows/tests.yml` — if ❌: run `/test-setup`
+   - `design/accessibility-requirements.md` — if ❌: run `/ux-design`
+   - `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` — if ❌: run `/ux-design`
+   Present ❌ items as required steps before gate-check. Do not offer `/gate-check`
+   as an option if any item is ❌ — offer the missing skill to run instead.
 3. **Rerun trigger**: "Re-run `/architecture-review` after each new ADR is written
    to verify coverage improves"
 
-Then close with `AskUserQuestion`:
-- "Architecture review complete. What would you like to do next?"
-  - [A] Write a missing ADR — open a fresh session and run `/architecture-decision [system]`
-  - [B] Run `/gate-check pre-production` — if all blocking gaps are resolved
-  - [C] Stop here for this session
+Then close with `AskUserQuestion` tailored to the pre-gate checklist state:
+- If ADR gaps remain or any pre-gate item is ❌:
+  - "Architecture review complete. What would you like to do next?"
+    - [A] Write a missing ADR — open a fresh session and run `/architecture-decision [system]`
+    - [B] Run `/test-setup` — required before gate-check (only show if test infrastructure is ❌)
+    - [C] Run `/ux-design` — required before gate-check (only show if UX/accessibility files are ❌)
+    - [D] Stop here for this session
+- If all pre-gate checklist items are ✅ and no blocking ADR gaps remain:
+  - "Architecture review complete. All pre-gate items confirmed. What would you like to do next?"
+    - [A] Run `/gate-check pre-production`
+    - [B] Write a missing ADR — open a fresh session and run `/architecture-decision [system]`
+    - [C] Stop here for this session
 
 ---
 
@@ -634,6 +653,13 @@ If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or fails to complete:
    anything; let the user see the state
 3. **Don't guess** — if a requirement is ambiguous, ask: "Is [X] a technical
    requirement or a design preference?"
-4. **Ask before writing** — always confirm before writing the report file
-5. **Non-blocking** — the verdict is advisory; the user decides whether to continue
+4. **Draft before approval** — always show the content that will be written (the
+   report, the updated ADR section, the systems-index row) inline in the conversation
+   before requesting approval. Never ask to write something the user has not yet seen.
+5. **Use `AskUserQuestion` for write approvals** — plain text "May I?" is not
+   sufficient. Use the structured tool with labeled options [A]/[B]/[C] so the
+   user can choose between "write now", "show full draft first", and "not yet".
+   Multi-file changesets must list every file and what changes, then ask once
+   with grouped options — not a separate plain-text question per file.
+6. **Non-blocking** — the verdict is advisory; the user decides whether to continue
    despite CONCERNS or even FAIL findings