Add director gates system: shared review checkpoints across all workflow skills

Creates .claude/docs/director-gates.md as a central registry of 18 named gate
prompts (CD-*, TD-*, PR-*, LP-*, QL-*, ND-*, AD-*) covering all 7 production
stages. Skills now reference gate IDs instead of embedding inline director prompts,
eliminating drift when prompts need updating.

Updated 15 skills to use gate IDs: brainstorm, map-systems, design-system,
architecture-decision, create-architecture, create-epics, create-stories,
sprint-plan, milestone-review, playtest-report, prototype, story-done,
gate-check, setup-engine, start.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md

@@ -51,15 +51,19 @@ conversationally (not as a checklist):
 
 **Taste profile**:
 - What 3 games have you spent the most time with? What kept you coming back?
+  *(Ask this as plain text — the user must be able to type specific game names freely.
+  Do NOT put this in an AskUserQuestion with preset options.)*
 - Are there genres you love? Genres you avoid? Why?
 - Do you prefer games that challenge you, relax you, tell you stories,
-  or let you express yourself?
+  or let you express yourself? *(Use `AskUserQuestion` for this — constrained choice.)*
 
-**Practical constraints** (shape the sandbox before brainstorming):
-- Solo developer or team? What skills are available?
-- Timeline: weeks, months, or years?
-- Any platform constraints? (PC only? Mobile? Console?)
-- First game or experienced developer?
+**Practical constraints** (shape the sandbox before brainstorming).
+Bundle these into a single multi-tab `AskUserQuestion` with these exact tab labels:
+- Tab "Experience" — "What kind of experience do you most want players to have?" (Challenge & Mastery / Story & Discovery / Expression & Creativity / Relaxation & Flow)
+- Tab "Timeline" — "What's your realistic development timeline?" (Weeks / Months / 1-2 years / Multi-year)
+- Tab "Dev level" — "Where are you in your dev journey?" (First game / Shipped before / Professional background)
+
+Use exactly these tab names — do not rename or duplicate them.
 
 **Synthesize** the answers into a **Creative Brief** — a 3-5 sentence
 summary of the person's emotional goals, taste profile, and constraints.
@@ -97,8 +101,12 @@ For each concept, present:
 - **Why It Could Work** (1 sentence on market/audience fit)
 - **Biggest Risk** (1 sentence on the hardest unanswered question)
 
-Present all three. Ask the user to pick one, combine elements, or request
-new concepts. Never pressure toward a choice — let them sit with it.
+Present all three. Then use `AskUserQuestion` to capture the selection:
+- **Use a single-list call — NO tabs, just `prompt` and `options`. Do not use a tabbed form here.**
+- **Prompt**: "Which concept resonates with you? You can pick one, combine elements, or ask for fresh directions."
+- **Options**: one option per concept (e.g., `Concept 1 — SCAR`), plus `Combine elements across concepts` and `Generate fresh directions`
+
+Never pressure toward a choice — let them sit with it.
 
 ---
 
@@ -109,11 +117,14 @@ The core loop is the beating heart of the game — if it isn't fun in
 isolation, no amount of content or polish will save the game.
 
 **30-Second Loop** (moment-to-moment):
-- What is the player physically doing most often?
-- Is this action intrinsically satisfying? (Would they do it with no
-  rewards, no progression, no story — just for the feel of it?)
-- What makes this action feel good? (Audio feedback, visual juice,
-  timing satisfaction, tactical depth?)
+
+Ask these as `AskUserQuestion` calls — derive the options from the chosen concept, don't hardcode them:
+
+1. **Core action feel** — prompt: "What's the primary feel of the core action?" Generate 3-4 options that fit the concept's genre and tone, plus a free-text escape (`I'll describe it`).
+
+2. **Key design dimension** — identify the most important design variable for this specific concept (e.g., world reactivity, pacing, player agency) and ask about it. Generate options that match the concept. Always include a free-text escape.
+
+After capturing answers, analyze: Is this action intrinsically satisfying? What makes it feel good? (Audio feedback, visual juice, timing satisfaction, tactical depth?)
 
 **5-Minute Loop** (short-term goals):
 - What structures the moment-to-moment play into cycles?
@@ -156,6 +167,12 @@ Then define **3+ anti-pillars** (what this game is NOT):
   be cool if..." features that don't serve the core vision
 - Frame as: "We will NOT do [thing] because it would compromise [pillar]"
 
+**After pillars and anti-pillars are agreed, spawn `creative-director` via Task using gate CD-PILLARS (`.claude/docs/director-gates.md`) before moving to Phase 5.**
+
+Pass: full pillar set with design tests, anti-pillars, core fantasy, unique hook.
+
+Present the feedback to the user. If CONCERNS or REJECT, offer to revise specific pillars before moving on. If APPROVE, note the approval and continue.
+
 ---
 
 ### Phase 5: Player Type Validation
@@ -177,8 +194,15 @@ who this game is actually for:
 
 Ground the concept in reality:
 
-- **Engine recommendation** (Godot / Unity / Unreal) with reasoning based
-  on concept needs, team expertise, and platform targets
+- **Target platform**: Use `AskUserQuestion` — "What platforms are you targeting for this game?"
+  Options: `PC (Steam / Epic)` / `Mobile (iOS / Android)` / `Console` / `Web / Browser` / `Multiple platforms`
+  Record the answer — it directly shapes the engine recommendation and will be passed to `/setup-engine`.
+  Note platform implications if relevant (e.g., mobile means Unity is strongly preferred; console means Godot has limitations; web means Godot exports cleanly).
+
+- **Engine experience**: Use `AskUserQuestion` — "Do you already have an engine you work in?"
+  Options: `Godot` / `Unity` / `Unreal Engine 5` / `No preference — help me decide`
+  - If they pick an engine → record it as their preference and move on. Do NOT second-guess it.
+  - If "No preference" → tell them: "Run `/setup-engine` after this session — it will walk you through the full decision based on your concept and platform target." Do not make a recommendation here.
 - **Art pipeline**: What's the art style and how labor-intensive is it?
 - **Content scope**: Estimate level/area count, item count, gameplay hours
 - **MVP definition**: What's the absolute minimum build that tests "is the
@@ -186,6 +210,18 @@ Ground the concept in reality:
 - **Biggest risks**: Technical risks, design risks, market risks
 - **Scope tiers**: What's the full vision vs. what ships if time runs out?
 
+**After identifying biggest technical risks, spawn `technical-director` via Task using gate TD-FEASIBILITY (`.claude/docs/director-gates.md`) before scope tiers are defined.**
+
+Pass: core loop description, platform target, engine choice (or "undecided"), list of identified technical risks.
+
+Present the assessment to the user. If HIGH RISK, offer to revisit scope before finalising. If CONCERNS, note them and continue.
+
+**After scope tiers are defined, spawn `producer` via Task using gate PR-SCOPE (`.claude/docs/director-gates.md`).**
+
+Pass: full vision scope, MVP definition, timeline estimate, team size.
+
+Present the assessment to the user. If UNREALISTIC, offer to adjust the MVP definition or scope tiers before writing the document.
+
 ---
 
 4. **Generate the game concept document** using the template at
@@ -197,16 +233,29 @@ Ground the concept in reality:
 
 If yes, generate the document using the template at `.claude/docs/templates/game-concept.md`, fill in ALL sections from the brainstorm conversation, and write the file, creating directories as needed.
 
+If no:
+- If the user already named a section to change, revise it directly — do not ask again which section.
+- If the user said no without specifying what to change, use `AskUserQuestion` — "Which section would you like to revise?"
+  Options: `Elevator Pitch` / `Core Fantasy & Unique Hook` / `Pillars` / `Core Loop` / `MVP Definition` / `Scope Tiers` / `Risks` / `Something else — I'll describe`
+
+After revising, show the updated section as a diff or clear before/after, then use `AskUserQuestion` — "Ready to write the updated concept document?"
+Options: `Yes — write it` / `Revise another section`
+Repeat until the user approves the write.
+
+**Scope consistency rule**: The "Estimated Scope" field in the Core Identity table must match the full-vision timeline from the Scope Tiers section — not just say "Large (9+ months)". Write it as "Large (X–Y months, solo)" or "Large (X–Y months, team of N)" so the summary table is accurate.
+
 6. **Suggest next steps** (in this order — this is the professional studio
-   pre-production pipeline):
-   - "Run `/setup-engine [engine] [version]` to configure the engine and populate version-aware reference docs"
-   - "Use `/design-review design/gdd/game-concept.md` to validate completeness"
-   - "Discuss vision with the `creative-director` agent for pillar refinement"
-   - "Decompose the concept into individual systems with `/map-systems` — maps dependencies, assigns priorities, and creates the systems index"
-   - "Author per-system GDDs with `/design-system` — guided, section-by-section GDD writing"
-   - "Prototype the core loop with `/prototype [core-mechanic]`"
-   - "Playtest the prototype with `/playtest-report` to validate the hypothesis"
-   - "If validated, plan the first sprint with `/sprint-plan new`"
+   pre-production pipeline). List ALL steps — do not abbreviate or truncate:
+   1. "Run `/setup-engine` to configure the engine and populate version-aware reference docs"
+   2. "Use `/design-review design/gdd/game-concept.md` to validate concept completeness before going downstream"
+   3. "Discuss vision with the `creative-director` agent for pillar refinement"
+   4. "Decompose the concept into individual systems with `/map-systems` — maps dependencies, assigns priorities, and creates the systems index"
+   5. "Author per-system GDDs with `/design-system` — guided, section-by-section GDD writing for each system identified in step 4"
+   6. "Plan the technical architecture with `/create-architecture` — defines how all systems fit together and connect"
+   7. "Validate readiness to advance with `/gate-check` — phase gate before committing to production"
+   8. "Prototype the riskiest system with `/prototype [core-mechanic]` — validate the core loop before full implementation"
+   9. "Run `/playtest-report` after the prototype to validate the core hypothesis"
+   10. "If validated, plan the first sprint with `/sprint-plan new`"
 
 7. **Output a summary** with the chosen concept's elevator pitch, pillars,
    primary player type, engine recommendation, biggest risk, and file path.