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/design-system/SKILL.md

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ description: "Guided, section-by-section GDD authoring for a single game system.
 argument-hint: "<system-name> [--review full|lean|solo]"
 user-invocable: true
 allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Task, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite
+model: sonnet
 ---
 
 When this skill is invoked:
@@ -281,6 +282,10 @@ Use the template structure from `.claude/docs/templates/game-design-document.md`
 
 Ask: "May I create the skeleton file at `design/gdd/[system-name].md`?"
 
+If the user declines: Stop with the following message:
+> "Verdict: **BLOCKED** — skeleton creation declined. The design session cannot proceed without the skeleton file, as all subsequent phases use it as the base. Re-run `/design-system [system]` when ready to create the file."
+Do not proceed to Section A.
+
 After writing, update `production/session-state/active.md`:
 - Use Glob to check if the file exists.
 - If it **does not exist**: use the **Write** tool to create it. Never attempt Edit on a file that may not exist.
@@ -419,6 +424,11 @@ Use the answer to frame the Player Fantasy section appropriately. Do NOT assume
 **Cross-reference**: Must align with the game pillars. If the system serves a pillar,
 quote the relevant pillar text.
 
+**Review mode check** (apply before spawning):
+- `solo` → skip this agent spawn. Draft the section without the specialist. Add a note: "`creative-director` not consulted — Solo mode. Review manually before production."
+- `lean` → skip unless this is a section with HIGH implementation risk (Sections D and H only). For other sections, draft without the agent.
+- `full` → spawn as described below.
+
 **Agent delegation (MANDATORY)**: After the framing answer is given but before drafting,
 spawn `creative-director` via Task:
 - Provide: system name, framing answer (direct/indirect/both), game pillars, any reference games the user mentioned, the game concept summary
@@ -449,6 +459,11 @@ This is usually the largest section. Break it into sub-sections:
 - What are the decision points the player faces?
 - What can the player NOT do? (Constraints are as important as capabilities)
 
+**Review mode check** (apply before spawning):
+- `solo` → skip this agent spawn. Draft the section without the specialist. Add a note: "Specialist agents not consulted — Solo mode. Review manually before production."
+- `lean` → skip unless this is a section with HIGH implementation risk (Sections D and H only). For other sections, draft without the agent.
+- `full` → spawn as described below.
+
 **Agent delegation (MANDATORY)**: Before drafting Section C, spawn specialist agents via Task in parallel:
 - Look up the system category in the routing table (Section 6 of this skill)
 - Spawn the Primary Agent AND Supporting Agent(s) listed for this category
@@ -494,6 +509,11 @@ table. A formula without defined variables cannot be implemented without guesswo
 - Should scaling be linear, logarithmic, or stepped?
 - What should the output ranges be at early/mid/late game?
 
+**Review mode check** (apply before spawning):
+- `solo` → skip this agent spawn. Draft the section without the specialist. Add a note: "`systems-designer` not consulted — Solo mode. Review manually before production."
+- `lean` → skip unless this is a section with HIGH implementation risk (Sections D and H only). For other sections, draft without the agent.
+- `full` → spawn as described below.
+
 **Agent delegation (MANDATORY)**: Before proposing any formulas or balance values, spawn specialist agents via Task in parallel:
 - **Always spawn `systems-designer`**: provide Core Rules from Section C, tuning goals from user, balance context from dependency GDDs. Ask them to propose formulas with variable tables and output ranges.
 - **For economy/cost systems, also spawn `economy-designer`**: provide placement costs, upgrade cost intent, and progression goals. Ask them to validate cost curves and ratios.
@@ -526,6 +546,11 @@ design question, not a specification.
 - What happens when two rules apply at the same time?
 - What happens if a player finds an unintended interaction? (Identify degenerate strategies)
 
+**Review mode check** (apply before spawning):
+- `solo` → skip this agent spawn. Draft the section without the specialist. Add a note: "`systems-designer` not consulted — Solo mode. Review manually before production."
+- `lean` → skip unless this is a section with HIGH implementation risk (Sections D and H only). For other sections, draft without the agent.
+- `full` → spawn as described below.
+
 **Agent delegation (MANDATORY)**: Spawn `systems-designer` via Task before finalising edge cases. Provide: the completed Sections C and D, and ask them to identify edge cases from the formula and rule space that the main session may have missed. For narrative systems, also spawn `narrative-director`. Present their findings and ask the user which to include.
 
 **Cross-reference**: Check edge cases against dependency GDDs. If a dependency
@@ -582,6 +607,11 @@ Include at least: one criterion per core rule from Section C, and one per formul
 from Section D. Do NOT write "the system works as designed" — every criterion must
 be independently verifiable by a QA tester without reading the GDD.
 
+**Review mode check** (apply before spawning):
+- `solo` → skip this agent spawn. Draft the section without the specialist. Add a note: "`qa-lead` not consulted — Solo mode. Review manually before production."
+- `lean` → skip unless this is a section with HIGH implementation risk (Sections D and H only). For other sections, draft without the agent.
+- `full` → spawn as described below.
+
 **Agent delegation (MANDATORY)**: Spawn `qa-lead` via Task before finalising acceptance criteria. Provide: the completed GDD sections C, D, E, and ask them to validate that the criteria are independently testable and cover all core rules and formulas. Surface any gaps or untestable criteria to the user.
 
 **Questions to ask**:
@@ -731,7 +761,7 @@ After the GDD is complete (and optionally reviewed):
 
 Ask: "May I update the systems index at `design/gdd/systems-index.md`?"
 
-### 5d: Update Session State
+### 5e: Update Session State
 
 Update `production/session-state/active.md` with:
 - Task: [system-name] GDD
@@ -740,7 +770,7 @@ Update `production/session-state/active.md` with:
 - Sections: All 8 written
 - Next: [suggest next system from design order]
 
-### 5e: Suggest Next Steps
+### 5f: Suggest Next Steps
 
 Use `AskUserQuestion`:
 - "What's next?"