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/qa-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ description: "Generate a QA test plan for a sprint or feature. Reads GDDs and st
 argument-hint: "[sprint | feature: system-name | story: path]"
 user-invocable: true
 allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, AskUserQuestion
+model: sonnet
 agent: qa-lead
 ---
 
@@ -68,9 +69,12 @@ After reading stories, load supporting context once (not per story):
 
 - `design/gdd/systems-index.md` — to understand system priorities and which
   GDDs are approved
-- For each unique GDD referenced across all stories: read only the
-  **Acceptance Criteria** and **Formulas** sections. Do not load full GDD text —
-  these two sections contain the testable requirements and the math to verify.
+- For each unique GDD referenced across all stories: read the
+  **Acceptance Criteria**, **Formulas**, and **Edge Cases** sections. Do not load
+  the full GDD text. These three sections contain the testable requirements, the math
+  to verify, and the boundary conditions that tests must cover. If an Edge Cases
+  section is absent from the GDD, note it per GDD: "No Edge Cases section found — edge
+  case coverage will be inferred from acceptance criteria only."
 - `docs/architecture/control-manifest.md` — scan for forbidden patterns that
   automated tests should guard against (if the file exists)
 
@@ -81,9 +85,10 @@ The story will be classified using acceptance criteria alone.
 
 ## Phase 3: Classify Each Story
 
-For each story, assign a Story Type. If the story already has a `Type:` field
-in its header, use that value and validate it against the criteria below. If the
-field is missing or ambiguous, infer the type from the acceptance criteria.
+For each story, assign a Story Type:
+
+- **If the story already has a `Type:` field in its header**: accept it as-is. Do NOT re-classify or validate against the criteria below — the Type was set by lead-programmer at story creation and is authoritative. Record it as-is.
+- **If the `Type:` field is missing**: infer the type from the acceptance criteria using the table below, and note in the report that the type was inferred (not declared). Flag this as a gap — the story should have its Type declared explicitly before implementation begins.
 
 | Story Type | Classification Indicators |
 |---|---|
@@ -226,11 +231,19 @@ test entry should reflect the real requirements of these specific stories.
 ## Phase 5: Write Output
 
 Show the complete plan in conversation (or a summary if the plan is very long),
-then ask:
+then ask two questions together using `AskUserQuestion`:
 
-"May I write this QA plan to `production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint-slug]-[date].md`?"
+```
+question: "Ready to write the QA plan. Choose output options:"
+multiSelect: true
+options:
+  - "Write QA plan to production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint-slug]-[date].md"
+  - "Also back-fill test case specs into each story file's ## QA Test Cases section (Recommended — enables /dev-story and /code-review traceability)"
+```
 
-Write the plan exactly as generated — do not truncate.
+If "Write QA plan" is selected: write the plan file exactly as generated — do not truncate.
+
+If "Also back-fill story files" is selected: for each Logic and Integration story in scope, edit the story file at its path. Find the `## QA Test Cases` section and replace its content with the test case specs generated in Phase 4 for that story. If a story has no `## QA Test Cases` section, append it before `## Test Evidence`. For Visual/Feel and UI stories, write the manual verification steps instead of test specs.
 
 After writing:
 
@@ -238,10 +251,16 @@ After writing:
 
 Next steps:
 - Share this plan with the team before sprint implementation begins
-- Run `/smoke-check sprint` after all stories are implemented to gate QA hand-off
+- Once all sprint stories are implemented, run `/smoke-check sprint` to gate QA hand-off — not yet, only after implementation is complete
 - For Logic/Integration stories, create the test files at the listed paths
   before marking stories done — `/story-done` checks for them"
 
+Silently append to `production/session-state/active.md` (create the file if it does not exist):
+
+```
+<!-- QA-PLAN: [date] | System: [system/sprint identifier] | Plan written: production/qa/qa-plan-[identifier]-[date].md -->
+```
+
 ---
 
 ## Collaborative Protocol