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/retrospective/SKILL.md

@@ -3,9 +3,8 @@ name: retrospective
 description: "Generates a sprint or milestone retrospective by analyzing completed work, velocity, blockers, and patterns. Produces actionable insights for the next iteration."
 argument-hint: "[sprint-N|milestone-name]"
 user-invocable: true
-allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write
-context: |
-  !git log --oneline --since="2 weeks ago" 2>/dev/null
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Bash, AskUserQuestion
+model: sonnet
 ---
 
 ## Phase 1: Parse Arguments
@@ -22,17 +21,14 @@ Before loading any data, glob for an existing retrospective file:
   (also check `production/sprints/sprint-[N]-retrospective.md` as an alternate location)
 - For milestone retrospectives: `production/retrospectives/retro-[milestone-name]-*.md`
 
-If a matching file is found, present the user with:
+If a matching file is found, use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- Prompt: "An existing retrospective was found: [filename]. How do you want to proceed?"
+- Options:
+  - `[A] Update existing — load it and add/revise sections with new data`
+  - `[B] Start fresh — generate a new retrospective (archive the old one)`
 
-```
-An existing retrospective was found: [filename]
-
-[A] Update existing retrospective — load it and add/revise sections
-[B] Start fresh — generate a new retrospective, archiving the old one
-```
-
-Wait for user selection before continuing. If updating, read the existing file and
-carry its content forward into the generation phase, revising sections with new data.
+If [A]: read the existing file and carry its content forward, revising sections with new data.
+If [B]: continue to Phase 2 with a blank slate. Before writing the new file, rename the existing one with a `-archived-[date]` suffix.
 
 ---
 
@@ -43,6 +39,8 @@ Read the sprint or milestone plan from the appropriate location:
 - Sprint plans: `production/sprints/`
 - Milestone definitions: `production/milestones/`
 
+**Also check for `production/sprint-status.yaml`**: if it exists, read it alongside the sprint plan. It is the authoritative source for actual story completion status (status: done, completed dates, blockers). Use it as the primary source for completion metrics in Phase 3. Fall back to markdown scanning only if the yaml does not exist. Note discrepancies between the yaml and the sprint plan (e.g., stories in yaml not in plan, or vice versa).
+
 **If the file does not exist or is empty**, output:
 
 > "No sprint data found for [sprint/milestone]. Run `/sprint-status` to generate
@@ -59,7 +57,13 @@ If the user chooses [B], stop here.
 
 Extract: planned tasks, estimated effort, owners, and goals.
 
-Read the git log for the period covered by the sprint or milestone to understand what was actually committed and when.
+Run git log for the sprint period to understand what was actually committed and when. Use the Bash tool (which uses Git Bash on Windows — the `2>/dev/null` is bash syntax, not PowerShell):
+
+```
+Bash: git log --oneline --since="4 weeks ago" 2>/dev/null || git log --oneline -20
+```
+
+Adjust the `--since` date to match the sprint duration if known from the sprint plan.
 
 ---
 
@@ -79,7 +83,7 @@ Scan the codebase for TODO/FIXME trends:
 - Compare to previous sprint counts if available (check previous retrospectives)
 - Note whether technical debt is growing or shrinking
 
-Read previous retrospectives (if any) from `production/sprints/` or `production/milestones/` to check:
+Read previous retrospectives (if any) from `production/retrospectives/` to check:
 
 - Were previous action items addressed?
 - Are the same problems recurring?
@@ -187,9 +191,9 @@ the single most important thing to change going forward?]
 
 Present the retrospective and top findings to the user (completion rate, velocity trend, top blocker, most important action item).
 
-Ask: "May I write this to `production/sprints/sprint-[N]-retrospective.md`?" (or the milestone path if applicable)
+Ask: "May I write this to `production/retrospectives/retro-sprint-[N]-[date].md`?" (or `production/retrospectives/retro-[milestone-name]-[date].md` for milestone retrospectives)
 
-If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — retrospective saved.
+If yes, write the file, creating the `production/retrospectives/` directory if needed. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — retrospective saved.
 
 If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
 
@@ -197,7 +201,14 @@ If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
 
 ## Phase 6: Next Steps
 
-- Run `/sprint-plan` to incorporate the action items and velocity data into the next sprint.
+Use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- Prompt: "Retrospective complete. The action items and velocity data are ready. Would you like to start sprint planning now with this data pre-loaded?"
+- Options:
+  - `[A] Yes — open sprint planning with retro action items and velocity delta pre-populated`
+  - `[B] No — I'll reference the retrospective file manually when I'm ready`
+
+If the user selects [A]: Proceed to invoke `/sprint-plan new`, passing the retrospective file path and a summary of the action items and velocity change so the sprint planner can reference them.
+
 - If this was a milestone retrospective, run `/gate-check` to formally assess readiness for the next phase.
 
 ### Guidelines