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/sprint-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ description: "Generates a new sprint plan or updates an existing one based on th
 argument-hint: "[new|update|status] [--review full|lean|solo]"
 user-invocable: true
 allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Task, AskUserQuestion
+model: sonnet
 context: |
   !ls production/sprints/ 2>/dev/null
 ---
@@ -17,6 +18,17 @@ Extract the mode argument (`new`, `update`, or `status`) and resolve the review
 
 See `.claude/docs/director-gates.md` for the full check pattern.
 
+**Review mode check** (before gates run):
+- Read `production/review-mode.txt` if it exists. Use that mode.
+- If the file doesn't exist and this is a `new` sprint: use `AskUserQuestion`:
+  - Prompt: "No review mode is set. Which review depth would you like for this sprint?"
+  - Options:
+    - `[A] full — spawn all director and lead gates`
+    - `[B] lean — skip non-phase-gate director reviews (recommended for most sprints)`
+    - `[C] solo — skip all gate spawning`
+  - After selection: write `production/review-mode.txt` with the chosen mode. Say: "Review mode set to [mode] and saved to production/review-mode.txt."
+- If the file doesn't exist and this is NOT a `new` sprint (e.g., updating an existing sprint): default to `lean` silently.
+
 ---
 
 ## Phase 1: Gather Context
@@ -40,7 +52,7 @@ For `new`:
 **Generate a sprint plan** following this format and present it to the user. Do NOT ask to write yet — the producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) runs first and may require revisions before the file is written.
 
 ```markdown
-# Sprint [N] -- [Start Date] to [End Date]
+# Sprint [N] — [Start Date] to [End Date]
 
 ## Sprint Goal
 [One sentence describing what this sprint achieves toward the milestone]
@@ -87,6 +99,19 @@ For `new`:
 - [ ] Code reviewed and merged
 ```
 
+For `update`:
+
+**Update an existing sprint plan**:
+
+1. Read the most recent sprint plan from `production/sprints/`.
+2. Present the current story list with their current statuses from `production/sprint-status.yaml`.
+3. Ask the user what to change: stories to add, remove, reprioritize, or re-estimate. Use `AskUserQuestion` to gather changes.
+4. Apply the changes and re-present the full revised plan for review.
+5. Re-run the producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) on the revised plan.
+6. Write the updated markdown plan and yaml together (same approval as `new` mode).
+
+Note: `update` mode does not reset story statuses. Stories already marked `in-progress` or `done` keep their status. Only `backlog` and `ready-for-dev` stories can be removed or reprioritized freely.
+
 For `status`:
 
 **Generate a status report**:
@@ -122,19 +147,27 @@ For `status`:
 
 ---
 
-## Phase 3: Write Sprint Status File
+## Phase 3: Prepare Sprint Status File
 
-After generating a new sprint plan, also write `production/sprint-status.yaml`.
+After generating a new sprint plan, also prepare the `production/sprint-status.yaml` content.
 This is the machine-readable source of truth for story status — read by
 `/sprint-status`, `/story-done`, and `/help` without markdown parsing.
 
-Ask: "May I also write `production/sprint-status.yaml` to track story status?"
+**Do not write the yaml yet** — hold it in context. The producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) may revise the story list. Both files will be written together after Phase 4 in a single write approval.
 
 Format:
 
 ```yaml
-# Auto-generated by /sprint-plan. Updated by /story-done.
+# Auto-generated by /sprint-plan. Updated by /story-done and /dev-story.
 # DO NOT edit manually — use /story-done to update story status.
+#
+# Status value mapping (yaml ↔ story file Status field):
+#   backlog        ↔  Not Started
+#   ready-for-dev  ↔  Ready
+#   in-progress    ↔  In Progress
+#   review         ↔  In Review
+#   done           ↔  Complete
+#   blocked        ↔  Blocked
 
 sprint: [N]
 goal: "[sprint goal]"
@@ -176,9 +209,22 @@ Before finalising the sprint plan, spawn `producer` via Task using gate **PR-SPR
 
 Pass: proposed story list (titles, estimates, dependencies), total team capacity in hours/days, any carryover from the previous sprint, milestone constraints and deadline.
 
-Present the producer's assessment. If UNREALISTIC, revise the story selection (defer stories to Should Have or Nice to Have) before asking for write approval. If CONCERNS, surface them and let the user decide whether to adjust.
+Present the producer's assessment.
 
-After handling the producer's verdict, ask: "May I write this sprint plan to `production/sprints/sprint-[N].md`?" If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — sprint plan created. If no: Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
+If UNREALISTIC: revise the story selection (defer stories to Should Have or Nice to Have) and re-present the updated plan before asking for write approval.
+
+If CONCERNS, use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- Prompt: "Producer flagged concerns with this sprint plan. How do you want to proceed?"
+- Options:
+  - `[A] Proceed as planned — I accept the risk`
+  - `[B] Adjust scope — defer some Should Have stories`
+  - `[C] Extend the sprint timeline`
+
+If [A]: proceed to write approval.
+If [B]: revise the story list, re-present the updated plan, then proceed to write approval.
+If [C]: adjust sprint dates and capacity, re-present the updated plan, then proceed to write approval.
+
+After handling the producer's verdict, ask: "May I write the sprint plan to `production/sprints/sprint-[N].md` and `production/sprint-status.yaml`?" If yes, write both files (creating directories as needed). Verdict: **COMPLETE** — sprint plan and status file created. If no: Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
 
 After writing, add:
 
@@ -226,3 +272,10 @@ After the sprint plan is written and QA plan status is resolved:
 - `/dev-story [story-file]` — begin implementing the first story
 - `/sprint-status` — check progress mid-sprint
 - `/scope-check [epic]` — verify no scope creep before implementation begins
+
+**Review mode configuration:** All director gates (producer feasibility, QA review, code review) respect the project review mode. The review mode is set in Phase 0 when the file does not exist (for `new` sprints), or can be overridden per-run with `--review full|lean|solo` as an argument. The file `production/review-mode.txt` contains one of:
+- `lean` — skip automated director gates (default if file is absent — fastest for solo dev)
+- `full` — run all director gates as spawned sub-agents
+- `solo` — skip all gates unconditionally (single-developer, no review)
+
+This file is read by `/sprint-plan`, `/story-readiness`, `/story-done`, and other skills at startup.