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/gate-check/SKILL.md

@@ -66,6 +66,11 @@ Note: in `solo` mode, director spawns (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GA
 - [ ] Game pillars defined (in concept doc or `design/gdd/game-pillars.md`)
 - [ ] Visual Identity Anchor section exists in `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (from brainstorm Phase 4 art-director output)
 
+**Recommended (not blocking):**
+- [ ] Concept prototype exists in `prototypes/` with a REPORT.md showing PROCEED verdict
+      (`/prototype [core-mechanic]`) — skipping this means GDDs may be written for an
+      idea that hasn't been played. Acceptable if the concept is proven by other means.
+
 **Quality Checks:**
 - [ ] Game concept has been reviewed (`/design-review` verdict not MAJOR REVISION NEEDED)
 - [ ] Core loop is described and understood
@@ -104,7 +109,7 @@ Note: in `solo` mode, director spawns (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GA
 - [ ] CI/CD test workflow exists at `.github/workflows/tests.yml` (or equivalent)
 - [ ] At least one example test file exists to confirm the framework is functional
 - [ ] Master architecture document exists at `docs/architecture/architecture.md`
-- [ ] Architecture traceability index exists at `docs/architecture/architecture-traceability.md`
+- [ ] Architecture traceability index exists at `docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md`
 - [ ] `/architecture-review` has been run (a review report file exists in `docs/architecture/`)
 - [ ] `design/accessibility-requirements.md` exists with accessibility tier committed
 - [ ] `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` exists (pattern library initialized, even if minimal)
@@ -139,22 +144,23 @@ A depends on B). If any cycle is detected (e.g. A→B→A, or A→B→C→A):
 ### Gate: Pre-Production → Production
 
 **Required Artifacts:**
-- [ ] At least 1 prototype in `prototypes/` with a README
+- [ ] Vertical slice exists in `prototypes/` with a REPORT.md (run `/vertical-slice`) — **recommended, not blocking**; if absent, surface as CONCERNS
 - [ ] First sprint plan exists in `production/sprints/`
 - [ ] Art bible is complete (all 9 sections) and AD-ART-BIBLE sign-off verdict is recorded in `design/art/art-bible.md`
-- [ ] Character visual profiles exist for key characters referenced in narrative docs
+- [ ] Entity inventory exists at `design/assets/entity-inventory.md` (recommended — run `/asset-spec` with no arguments to generate collaboratively from GDDs + art bible)
 - [ ] All MVP-tier GDDs from systems index are complete
 - [ ] Master architecture document exists at `docs/architecture/architecture.md`
 - [ ] At least 3 ADRs covering Foundation-layer decisions exist in `docs/architecture/`
+- [ ] All Foundation and Core layer ADRs have status `Accepted` (not `Proposed`) — stories cannot be unblocked until their governing ADR is accepted
 - [ ] Control manifest exists at `docs/architecture/control-manifest.md`
       (generated by `/create-control-manifest` from Accepted ADRs)
 - [ ] Epics defined in `production/epics/` with at least Foundation and Core
       layer epics present (use `/create-epics layer: foundation` and
       `/create-epics layer: core` to create them, then `/create-stories [epic-slug]`
       for each epic)
-- [ ] Vertical Slice build exists and is playable (not just scope-defined)
-- [ ] Vertical Slice has been playtested with at least 3 sessions (internal OK)
-- [ ] Vertical Slice playtest report exists at `production/playtests/` or equivalent
+- [ ] Vertical Slice build exists and is playable (not just scope-defined) — **recommended, not blocking**; if absent, surface as CONCERNS
+- [ ] Vertical Slice has been playtested with at least 1 documented session — **recommended, not blocking**; if absent, surface as CONCERNS
+- [ ] Vertical Slice playtest report exists at `production/playtests/` or equivalent — **recommended, not blocking**; if absent, surface as CONCERNS
 - [ ] UX specs exist for key screens: main menu, core gameplay HUD (at `design/ux/`), pause menu
 - [ ] HUD design document exists at `design/ux/hud.md` (if game has in-game HUD)
 - [ ] All key screen UX specs have passed `/ux-review` (verdict APPROVED or NEEDS REVISION accepted)
@@ -174,15 +180,19 @@ A depends on B). If any cycle is detected (e.g. A→B→A, or A→B→C→A):
       (run `/review-all-gdds` and `/architecture-review` if not done recently)
 - [ ] **Core fantasy is delivered** — at least one playtester independently described an experience that matches the Player Fantasy section of the core system GDDs (without being prompted).
 
-**Vertical Slice Validation** (FAIL if any item is NO):
+**Vertical Slice Validation** (only run these checks if a Vertical Slice was built):
 - [ ] A human has played through the core loop without developer guidance
 - [ ] The game communicates what to do within the first 2 minutes of play
 - [ ] No critical "fun blocker" bugs exist in the Vertical Slice build
 - [ ] The core mechanic feels good to interact with (this is a subjective check — ask the user)
 
-> **Note**: If any Vertical Slice Validation item is FAIL, the verdict is automatically FAIL
-> regardless of other checks. Advancing without a validated Vertical Slice is the #1 cause of
-> production failure in game development (per GDC postmortem data from 155 projects).
+> **Verdict rules for Vertical Slice:**
+> - **Slice was built AND any validation item is NO** → verdict is automatically FAIL. A broken
+>   or unfun vertical slice should not advance to Production.
+> - **Slice was not built (skipped)** → downgrade to CONCERNS only, not FAIL. Surface the risk
+>   clearly: "Advancing without a validated Vertical Slice increases the risk of late-stage design
+>   pivots. Recommended before committing full production scope." The user decides.
+> - Skipping is a valid solo dev or time-constrained call. Shipping a broken one is not.
 
 ---
 
@@ -196,6 +206,7 @@ A depends on B). If any cycle is detected (e.g. A→B→A, or A→B→C→A):
 - [ ] All Logic stories from this sprint have corresponding unit test files in `tests/unit/`
 - [ ] Smoke check has been run with a PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS verdict — report exists in `production/qa/`
 - [ ] QA plan exists in `production/qa/` (generated by `/qa-plan`) covering this sprint or final production sprint
+- [ ] At least one QA plan exists in `production/qa/` covering this production phase — run `/qa-plan` if missing (CONCERNS — advisory, not blocking)
 - [ ] QA sign-off report exists in `production/qa/` (generated by `/team-qa`) with verdict APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
 - [ ] At least 3 distinct playtest sessions documented in `production/playtests/`
 - [ ] Playtest reports cover: new player experience, mid-game systems, and difficulty curve
@@ -295,6 +306,13 @@ For items that can't be automatically verified, **ask the user**:
 
 ## 4b. Director Panel Assessment
 
+**Apply review mode before spawning any director:**
+- `solo` → skip all four directors. Note in output: "Director Panel skipped — Solo mode. Gate verdict based on artifact and quality checks only." Proceed to Phase 5.
+- `lean` → spawn all four directors (phase gates always run in lean mode — this is their purpose).
+- `full` → spawn all four directors as normal.
+
+(Review mode was resolved in Phase 1. Use that stored value here.)
+
 Before generating the final verdict, spawn all four directors as **parallel subagents** via Task using the parallel gate protocol from `.claude/docs/director-gates.md`. Issue all four Task calls simultaneously — do not wait for one before starting the next.
 
 **Spawn in parallel:**
@@ -372,10 +390,12 @@ After drafting the verdict in Phase 5, challenge it before finalising.
 
 **Step 1 — Generate 5 challenge questions** designed to disprove the verdict:
 
+> **Tool-action requirement**: At least 2 of the 5 challenge questions below must be answered by re-reading a specific file (Read tool) or re-running a specific check (Grep tool) — not by reflection alone. Mark these with [TOOL ACTION] to indicate a tool was used.
+
 For a **PASS** draft:
 - "Which quality checks did I verify by actually reading a file, vs. inferring they passed?"
-- "Are there MANUAL CHECK NEEDED items I marked PASS without user confirmation?"
-- "Did I confirm all listed artifacts have real content, not just empty headers?"
+- "Are there MANUAL CHECK NEEDED items I marked PASS without user confirmation? [TOOL ACTION] Re-scan the checklist for any [?] or MANUAL CHECK items."
+- "Did I confirm all listed artifacts have real content, not just empty headers? [TOOL ACTION] Re-read the file and check it has non-placeholder content."
 - "Could any blocker I dismissed as minor actually prevent the phase from succeeding?"
 - "Which single check am I least confident in, and why?"
 
@@ -441,11 +461,27 @@ Gate passed. What would you like to do next?
 For **technical-setup PASS**:
 ```
 Gate passed. What would you like to do next?
-[A] Start Pre-Production — begin prototyping the Vertical Slice
-[B] Write more ADRs first — run /architecture-decision [next-system]
-[C] Stop here for this session
+[A] Run /create-control-manifest — generate the layer rules manifest from your Accepted ADRs (do this first)
+[B] Run /vertical-slice — build the Vertical Slice (do this before writing epics — validate fun first)
+[C] Write more ADRs first — run /architecture-decision [next-system]
+[D] Stop here for this session
 ```
 
+> **Note for technical-setup PASS**: The Pre-Production sequence is deliberately ordered
+> to validate fun before committing to detailed planning:
+>
+> 1. `/create-control-manifest` — extract technical rules from Accepted ADRs (required before epics)
+> 2. `/vertical-slice` — build the Vertical Slice **FIRST**, before writing epics or stories
+> 3. Playtest → `/playtest-report` — at least 1 session required to pass the Pre-Production gate; 3+ recommended before committing the full team
+> 4. `/ux-design [screen]` — UX specs for main menu, core HUD, pause menu (if not done)
+> 5. `/create-epics layer:foundation` then `/create-epics layer:core` — plan after fun is validated
+> 6. `/create-stories [epic-slug]` for each epic
+> 7. `/sprint-plan new`
+>
+> **Why prototype before epics?** If the prototype reveals the core loop needs to change,
+> epics written before that discovery will be partially wrong. Validate fun cheaply first,
+> then plan in detail. This is the #1 lesson from GDC postmortem data.
+
 For all other gates, offer the two most logical next steps for that phase plus "Stop here".
 
 ---
@@ -462,13 +498,7 @@ Based on the verdict, suggest specific next steps:
 - **Small design change needed?** → `/quick-design` for changes under ~4 hours (bypasses full GDD pipeline)
 - **No UX specs?** → `/ux-design [screen name]` to author specs, or `/team-ui [feature]` for full pipeline
 - **UX specs not reviewed?** → `/ux-review [file]` or `/ux-review all` to validate
-- **No accessibility requirements doc?** → Use `AskUserQuestion` to offer to create it now:
-  - Prompt: "The gate requires `design/accessibility-requirements.md`. Shall I create it from the template?"
-  - Options: `Create it now — I'll choose an accessibility tier`, `I'll create it myself`, `Skip for now`
-  - If "Create it now": use a second `AskUserQuestion` to ask for the tier:
-    - Prompt: "Which accessibility tier fits this project?"
-    - Options: `Basic — remapping + subtitles only (lowest effort)`, `Standard — Basic + colorblind modes + scalable UI`, `Comprehensive — Standard + motor accessibility + full settings menu`, `Exemplary — Comprehensive + external audit + full customization`
-  - Then write `design/accessibility-requirements.md` using the template at `.claude/docs/templates/accessibility-requirements.md`, filling in the chosen tier. Confirm: "May I write `design/accessibility-requirements.md`?"
+- **No accessibility requirements doc?** → run `/ux-design` which creates both `design/accessibility-requirements.md` and `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` in one step
 - **No interaction pattern library?** → `/ux-design patterns` to initialize it
 - **GDDs not cross-reviewed?** → `/review-all-gdds` (run after all MVP GDDs are individually approved)
 - **Cross-GDD consistency issues?** → fix flagged GDDs, then re-run `/review-all-gdds`
@@ -484,9 +514,9 @@ Based on the verdict, suggest specific next steps:
 - **Stories not implementation-ready?** → `/story-readiness` to validate stories before developers pick them up
 - **Tests failing?** → delegate to `lead-programmer` or `qa-tester`
 - **No playtest data?** → `/playtest-report`
-- **Less than 3 playtest sessions?** → Run more playtests before advancing. Use `/playtest-report` to structure findings.
-- **No Difficulty Curve doc?** → Consider creating one at `design/difficulty-curve.md` before polish
-- **No player journey document?** → create `design/player-journey.md` using the player journey template
+- **No playtest sessions beyond the minimum?** → Additional sessions give more reliable signal. 3+ total is recommended before committing the full team. Use `/playtest-report` to structure findings.
+- **No Difficulty Curve doc?** → Create `design/difficulty-curve.md` from the template at `.claude/docs/templates/difficulty-curve.md` — or use `/quick-design "difficulty curve"` for a guided session.
+- **No player journey map?** → Create `design/player-journey.md` from the template at `.claude/docs/templates/player-journey.md` — or author it collaboratively using `/ux-design` Phase 2b.
 - **Need a quick sprint check?** → `/sprint-status` for current sprint progress snapshot
 - **Performance unknown?** → `/perf-profile`
 - **Not localized?** → `/localize`
@@ -503,6 +533,10 @@ This skill follows the collaborative design principle:
 3. **Present findings**: Show the full checklist with status
 4. **User decides**: The verdict is a recommendation — the user makes the final call
 5. **Get approval**: "May I write this gate check report to production/gate-checks/?"
+6. **Never auto-fix**: If required artifacts are missing, report the FAIL verdict and
+   name the skill to run (e.g. "run `/test-setup`"). Do NOT create missing files or
+   re-run the gate automatically. Creating files to manufacture a PASS defeats the
+   gate's purpose.
 
 **Never** block a user from advancing — the verdict is advisory. Document the risks
 and let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns.