Release 1.1.2 — the default path works end to end

Fix release for 1.1.1: the minimal path end to end, engine commands that
run on Godot, Unity and Unreal, hook warnings you can see, and verdicts
that say when they could not check. Details in CHANGELOG.md; upgrade
steps in UPGRADING.md (v1.1.1 → v1.1.2).

Fixes #67
Fixes #131

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuJn2FdynEybfL5KC697nJ

.claude/skills/vertical-slice/SKILL.md

@@ -5,11 +5,13 @@ argument-hint: "[--review full|lean|solo]"
 user-invocable: true
 allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Agent, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/vertical-slice/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)
 model: sonnet
-isolation: worktree
 ---
 
 !`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation`
 
+Resolved above — use as-is; `--review` overrides `review_mode` for this run. No
+block → defaults in `.claude/docs/config-resolution.md`.
+
 
 
 ## Purpose
@@ -49,7 +51,9 @@ Every `AskUserQuestion` call follows `.claude/docs/automation-modes.md`
 
 Read the following files to understand the full design intent:
 - `CLAUDE.md` — tech stack and engine
-- `design/gdd/game-concept.md` — core fantasy and game pillars
+- `design/gdd/game-concept.md` — core fantasy and game pillars (or
+  `design/game-brief.md`, the one-page brief that replaces it at `rigor: minimal` —
+  pitch, core loop and "what they feel" line; it has no pillars)
 - `design/gdd/systems-index.md` — MVP systems and their priorities
 - `docs/architecture/architecture.md` — layer structure
 - `docs/architecture/control-manifest.md` — technical rules for implementation
@@ -61,7 +65,7 @@ Read the following files to understand the full design intent:
 
 Before building, define the **falsifiable validation question**:
 
-> *"Does a player, starting from nothing, experience [core fantasy from game-concept.md]
+> *"Does a player, starting from nothing, experience [core fantasy from game-concept.md or game-brief.md]
 > within [N] minutes, without developer guidance — and can we build one such loop
 > in [X] days at representative quality?"*
 
@@ -96,7 +100,8 @@ Define in bullet points:
 - Specific, measurable success criteria for the validation question
 - Hard time limit: [X] days. If exceeded, scope was wrong — stop and reassess.
 
-Ask the user to confirm scope before building.
+Ask the user to confirm scope before building. Name the checkpoint file in that
+confirmation: "May I record this plan in `production/session-state/active.md`?"
 
 Once confirmed, write a session checkpoint to `production/session-state/active.md`
 (create `production/session-state/` if it does not exist). Include: concept name,
@@ -115,11 +120,17 @@ Ask: "May I create the vertical slice directory at
 If yes, create the directory. Every file must begin with:
 
 ```
-// VERTICAL SLICE - NOT FOR PRODUCTION
-// Validation Question: [What this build is proving]
-// Date: [Current date]
+[comment] VERTICAL SLICE - NOT FOR PRODUCTION
+[comment] Validation Question: [What this build is proving]
+[comment] Date: [Current date]
 ```
 
+Write `[comment]` in each file's own comment syntax — `#` in GDScript (`.gd`) and
+Python, `//` in C#, C++ and JavaScript, `--` in Lua, `<!-- … -->` in HTML and
+Markdown. A header in another language's syntax is a parse error, not a label.
+Files that cannot hold a comment (JSON, engine-generated scene and project
+files) are exempt.
+
 **Quality standards** — higher than concept prototype, not full production:
 - Follow architecture layers from `docs/architecture/control-manifest.md`
 - Naming conventions — `naming.*` from `project.yaml`; for any key absent or empty (including when `project.yaml` has no `naming` block), from `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md`
@@ -197,7 +208,7 @@ Once the user returns, ask these questions **one at a time**:
    > where you felt like you were actually playing the game?"
 
 3. **Core fantasy:**
-   > "The game is supposed to make you feel [core fantasy from game-concept.md].
+   > "The game is supposed to make you feel [core fantasy from game-concept.md or game-brief.md].
    > Did it? Be honest — not 'kind of' but specifically what you felt and when."
 
 4. **Blockers:**
@@ -214,6 +225,21 @@ Once the user returns, ask these questions **one at a time**:
 If any answer is vague, ask: "Can you give me the specific moment where that happened?"
 Precise observations populate the report. Vague ones produce a useless report.
 
+**PROCEED is not available when a validation item is NO.** `/gate-check production`
+FAILs a built slice with any NO in its Vertical Slice Validation — a player got
+through the loop without developer guidance (question 1), learned what to do
+within the first 2 minutes (question 2 — longer is a no), the core mechanic feels
+good (question 3), no critical fun-blocker bug (question 4). If any of those
+answers is no, the verdict is PIVOT or KILL — the user chooses — and the report
+names the NO.
+
+**NOT ASSESSED is the fourth verdict.** When nobody has yet played the complete
+loop from scratch — the user cannot play it this session, or stopped before the
+end — the validation did not run, and the verdict is **NOT ASSESSED**, with the
+reason. It ranks above PROCEED and below PIVOT and KILL: an unplayed slice has not
+earned PROCEED, and a slice known to fail is more actionable than one nobody
+played. It is never recorded as PROCEED.
+
 ---
 
 ## Phase 6: Generate Vertical Slice Report
@@ -230,26 +256,25 @@ skip it. It feeds directly into sprint planning.
 Read `.claude/docs/templates/vertical-slice-report.md` to get the report structure.
 If the template file is not found, use this fallback structure:
 - `## Vertical Slice Report — [Game Title] — [Date]`
-- `### Executive Summary` (PROCEED / PIVOT / STOP verdict + 2-sentence rationale)
+- `### Executive Summary` (PROCEED / PIVOT / KILL / NOT ASSESSED verdict + 2-sentence rationale)
 - `### Core Loop Validation` (what was tested, what passed, what failed)
 - `### Feel Assessment` (animation, controls, feedback — subjective notes)
 - `### Technical Findings` (performance, engine issues, architectural risks)
 - `### Velocity Log` (day-by-day actual progress — do not skip)
+- `### Lessons Learned` (assumptions broken by building to near-production
+  quality; what surprised us about the pipeline or architecture; what we would
+  change about the slice scope next time)
 - `### Recommended Next Steps`
 
 Fill in every section based on what was observed and built during this session.
 The velocity log must reflect actual day-by-day progress, not estimates — this is
 the most honest production rate data you will ever have. Replace all placeholder
-text with real observations.
-
-### Lessons Learned
-- What assumptions were broken by actually building to near-production quality?
-- What surprised us about the pipeline or architecture?
-- What would we change about the slice scope if we ran this again?
-```
+text with real observations. The recommendation carries the Phase 5 verdict,
+NOT ASSESSED included, with its reason.
 
 Ask: "May I write this report to
-`prototypes/[concept-name]-vertical-slice/REPORT.md`?"
+`prototypes/[concept-name]-vertical-slice/REPORT.md` and add its row to
+`prototypes/index.md`?"
 
 If yes, write the file. Then update `prototypes/index.md` (create if it does not
 exist) — append one row to the vertical slice table: concept name, date, verdict,
@@ -265,14 +290,34 @@ the project — cross-reference it with sprint estimates.
 - `solo` → skip. Note: "CD-PLAYTEST skipped — Solo mode."
 - `lean` → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "CD-PLAYTEST skipped — Lean mode."
 - `full` → spawn `creative-director` via `Agent` using gate **CD-PLAYTEST**
-  (`.claude/docs/director-gates/cd-playtest.md`).
+  (`.claude/docs/director-gates/cd-playtest.md`) — unless the slice's verdict is
+  NOT ASSESSED: with no playthrough there is nothing to review, so note
+  "CD-PLAYTEST skipped — the slice has not been played yet."
 
 Pass: the full REPORT.md content, the validation question, game pillars and core
-fantasy from `design/gdd/game-concept.md`.
+fantasy from `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (or the pitch and "what they feel" line
+from `design/game-brief.md` at `rigor: minimal`).
 
 The creative director evaluates the vertical slice result against the game's
-creative vision and pillars, then confirms, modifies, or overrides the
-recommendation. Their verdict is final. Update REPORT.md if the verdict differs.
+creative vision and pillars and returns one of the gate's verdicts — APPROVE,
+CONCERNS or REJECT. Apply it to the recommendation:
+
+- **APPROVE** → the recommendation stands.
+- **CONCERNS** → show the concerns alongside the recommendation, then use
+  `AskUserQuestion`: `Revise the recommendation` / `Accept with noted concerns` /
+  `Discuss further`. The user decides; the director does not.
+- **REJECT** (the core fantasy is not present) → a PROCEED recommendation cannot
+  stand. Use `AskUserQuestion` to ask the user to choose `PIVOT` or `KILL`, and run
+  Phase 8 for that choice. A PIVOT or KILL recommendation stands.
+- **NOT ASSESSED** [missing input] → the director made no judgement, so it neither
+  backs nor overturns the recommendation (`.claude/docs/director-gates.md`): name
+  what was missing, then supply it and re-run the gate, or record
+  `CD-PLAYTEST: NOT ASSESSED — [input]` in the report.
+
+When the director returned CONCERNS, REJECT or NOT ASSESSED, ask "May I update
+`prototypes/[concept-name]-vertical-slice/REPORT.md` and its
+`prototypes/index.md` row?", then record the director's verdict and reason in
+REPORT.md, and the final recommendation in both if it changed.
 
 ---
 
@@ -290,7 +335,7 @@ Recommended next steps:
 - `/create-epics layer:core` — plan Core layer epics
 - `/create-stories [epic-slug]` — break each epic into implementable stories
 - `/sprint-plan` — plan the first sprint using velocity data from the slice
-- `/gate-check pre-production` — formally advance the stage to Production
+- `/gate-check production` — formally advance the stage to Production
 
 **Playtest note:** `/gate-check` will look for documented playtest evidence.
 At minimum, 1 documented session with a REPORT.md showing PROCEED is required
@@ -343,6 +388,14 @@ Ask: "May I append this to `prototypes/GRAVEYARD.md`?" If yes, add one entry:
 - Return to `/brainstorm` with what you learned
 - Or run `/prototype [new-concept]` to test a new direction cheaply first
 
+**If NOT ASSESSED:**
+
+The slice is built but not validated. Say which reason applied, then finish the
+Phase 5 playthrough and debrief — the `production/session-state/active.md`
+checkpoint is where to resume — and, after asking, update REPORT.md and its
+`prototypes/index.md` row with the verdict. Do not take the slice to
+`/gate-check production` as if it had passed: NOT ASSESSED is not a PROCEED.
+
 ---
 
 ### Important Constraints