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/ux-design/SKILL.md

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ description: "Guided, section-by-section UX spec authoring for a screen, flow, o
 argument-hint: "[screen/flow name] or 'hud' or 'patterns'"
 user-invocable: true
 allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, AskUserQuestion, Task
+model: sonnet
 agent: ux-designer
 ---
 
@@ -54,6 +55,9 @@ If the player journey file does not exist, note the gap and proceed:
 > means we'll be making assumptions about player context. Consider running a player
 > journey session after this spec is drafted."
 
+Also add to the UX spec's Open Questions section:
+> "Player journey map not yet created. Template available at `.claude/docs/templates/player-journey.md`. Run `/ux-design` Phase 2b or create it manually to establish player context for this screen."
+
 ### 2c: GDD UI Requirements
 
 Glob `design/gdd/*.md` and grep for `UI Requirements` sections. Read any GDD whose
@@ -416,9 +420,13 @@ Context  ->  Questions  ->  Options  ->  Decision  ->  Draft  ->  Approval  ->
 4. **Decision**: User picks an approach or provides custom direction.
 5. **Draft**: Write the section content in conversation for review. Flag provisional
    assumptions explicitly.
-6. **Approval**: "Does this capture it? Any changes before I write it to the file?"
-7. **Write**: Use `Edit` to replace the `[To be designed]` placeholder with approved
-   content. Confirm the write.
+6. **Approval**: Use `AskUserQuestion`:
+   - "Does this capture the [section name] correctly?"
+   - Options: "Yes — write it to the file", "Small changes needed (describe below)", "Major rethink needed"
+   Do not proceed to step 7 until the user selects "Yes".
+7. **Write**: Use `AskUserQuestion`: "May I write the [section name] section to `[filepath]`?"
+   - Options: "Yes, write it", "Wait — one more change"
+   Once confirmed, use `Edit` to replace the `[To be designed]` placeholder with approved content.
 
 After writing each section, update `production/session-state/active.md`.
 
@@ -501,7 +509,9 @@ This is the largest and most interactive section. Work through it in sub-section
   area, action bar, sidebar, etc.).
 - Offer 2-3 zone arrangements with rationale for each. Reference platform and
   input context gathered from game concept.
-- Ask: "Do any of these match your mental image, or shall we build a custom arrangement?"
+- Use `AskUserQuestion` to capture the choice:
+  - "Which zone arrangement fits best?"
+  - Options: [the 2-3 named arrangements you just presented] + "None — build a custom arrangement"
 
 **Sub-section 3 — Component Inventory**:
 - For each zone, list the UI components it contains. For each component, note:
@@ -631,9 +641,9 @@ Walk through the ux-designer agent's standard checklist for this screen:
 - Screen reader considerations for any non-text elements
 - Any motion or animation that needs a reduced-motion alternative
 
-Use `AskUserQuestion` to surface any open questions on accessibility tier:
-- "Has the accessibility tier been committed to for this project?"
-  - Options: "Yes, read from requirements doc", "Not yet — let's flag it as a question", "Skip accessibility section for now"
+If no accessibility tier has been defined for this project, note the gap in the UX spec's Open Questions section:
+> "Accessibility tier not yet defined — consider WCAG-AA as a baseline. Run `/gate-check` to see whether this blocks any phase gates."
+Then continue to the next section without stopping.
 
 ---
 
@@ -672,7 +682,9 @@ Write at least 5 specific, testable criteria that a QA tester can verify without
 - 1 accessibility criterion (per committed tier)
 - 1 criterion specific to this screen's core purpose
 
-Ask the user to confirm: "Do these criteria cover what would actually make this screen 'done' for your QA process?"
+Use `AskUserQuestion` to confirm:
+- "Do these acceptance criteria cover what would make this screen 'done' for your QA process?"
+- Options: "Yes — these are solid", "Add one more criterion", "Remove or rephrase one"
 
 ---
 
@@ -812,8 +824,9 @@ For each pattern (existing or new), document:
 **Reference**: [Screenshot path or ASCII example, if available]
 ```
 
-Work through patterns in groups. Offer: "Shall I draft the first batch based on what
-I've found in the existing specs, or do you want to define them one by one?"
+Work through patterns in groups. Use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- "How do you want to work through these patterns?"
+- Options: "Draft the first batch from existing specs (faster)", "Define them one by one (more control)", "Start with the most-used pattern first"
 
 ---
 
@@ -839,8 +852,9 @@ this screen have a corresponding element in this spec? Present any gaps.
 **2. Pattern library alignment**: Are all interaction patterns used in this spec
 referenced by name? If a new pattern was invented during this spec session, flag
 it for addition to the pattern library:
-> "This spec uses [pattern name], which isn't in the pattern library yet.
-> Want to add it now, or flag it as a gap?"
+Use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- "This spec uses [pattern name], which isn't in the pattern library yet. What should we do?"
+- Options: "Add it to the pattern library now", "Flag it as a gap and continue", "Skip — this pattern is one-off"
 
 **3. Navigation consistency**: Do the entry/exit points in this spec match the
 navigation map in any related specs? Flag mismatches.