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

CCGS Skill Testing Framework/agents/directors/art-director.md

@@ -3,8 +3,7 @@
 ## Agent Summary
 **Domain owned:** Visual identity, art bible authorship and enforcement, asset quality standards, UI/UX visual design, visual phase gate, concept art evaluation.
 **Does NOT own:** UX interaction flows and information architecture (ux-designer's domain), audio direction (audio-director), code implementation.
-**Model tier:** Sonnet (note: despite the "director" title, art-director is assigned Sonnet per coordination-rules.md — it handles individual system analysis, not multi-document phase gate synthesis at the Opus level).
-**Gate IDs handled:** AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL, AD-ART-BIBLE, AD-PHASE-GATE.
+**Gate IDs handled:** AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL, AD-ART-BIBLE, AD-VISUAL, AD-PHASE-GATE.
 
 ---
 
@@ -13,8 +12,8 @@
 Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/art-director.md` frontmatter:
 
 - [ ] `description:` field is present and domain-specific (references visual identity, art bible, asset standards — not generic)
-- [ ] `allowed-tools:` list is read-focused; image review capability if supported; no Bash unless asset pipeline checks are justified
-- [ ] Model tier is `claude-sonnet-5` (NOT Opus — coordination-rules.md assigns Sonnet to art-director)
+- [ ] `tools:` includes Read (which also opens images for visual review) and Write/Edit for the art bible it maintains, and no Bash — `disallowedTools:` blocks it
+- [ ] Model tier is `inherit` — frontmatter `model:` reads exactly `inherit` (tiers: `.claude/docs/model-tiers.md`)
 - [ ] Agent definition does not claim authority over UX interaction flows or audio direction
 
 ---
@@ -22,12 +21,12 @@ Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/art-director.md` frontmatter:
 ## Test Cases
 
 ### Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output format
-**Scenario:** The art bible's color palette section is submitted for review. The section defines a desaturated earth-tone primary palette with high-contrast accent colors tied to the game pillar "beauty in decay." The palette is internally consistent and references the pillar vocabulary. Request is tagged AD-ART-BIBLE.
-**Expected:** Returns `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE` with rationale confirming the palette's internal consistency and its alignment with the stated pillar.
+**Scenario:** A complete art bible is submitted for sign-off with the pillars and core fantasy, the platform constraints and the visual identity anchor chosen during brainstorm. Its color section defines a desaturated earth-tone primary palette with high-contrast accent colors tied to the game pillar "beauty in decay"; its shape language, asset standards and character direction are consistent with that section and within the stated platform constraints. Request is tagged AD-ART-BIBLE.
+**Expected:** Returns `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE` with rationale confirming the palette's internal consistency and that the color system matches the pillar's mood target.
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
 - [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE`
-- [ ] Rationale references the specific palette characteristics and pillar alignment — not generic art advice
+- [ ] Rationale references the specific palette characteristics and how they serve the "beauty in decay" mood target (the gate's color-vs-mood check) — not generic art advice
 - [ ] Output stays within visual domain — does not comment on UX interaction patterns or audio mood
 
 ### Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects or escalates
@@ -36,16 +35,16 @@ Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/art-director.md` frontmatter:
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Does not make any binding decision about audio layering or ducking behavior
 - [ ] Explicitly names `audio-director` as the correct handler
-- [ ] May note if the audio has visual mood implications (e.g., "the audio should match the visual tension of the zone"), but defers all audio specification to audio-director
+- [ ] Any comment it makes is about the zone's visual mood (e.g., "the audio should match the visual tension of the zone") — it specifies no layer, duck amount, fade time or trigger
 
 ### Case 3: Gate verdict — correct vocabulary
-**Scenario:** Concept art for the protagonist is submitted. The art uses a vivid, saturated color palette (primary: #FF4500, #00BFFF) that directly contradicts the established art bible's "desaturated earth-tones" palette specification. Request is tagged AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL.
-**Expected:** Returns `AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS` with specific citation of the palette discrepancy, referencing the art bible's stated palette values versus the submitted concept's palette.
+**Scenario:** Right after pillars are locked, the concept and pillar set are submitted for a visual identity anchor. The three pillars are "fun combat," "great story," and "lots of content"; none of their design tests says anything about mood, atmosphere, or what the world should feel like, and no visual touchstones were given. Request is tagged AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL.
+**Expected:** Returns `AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS` — the gate's verdict for pillars that don't yet give enough direction to differentiate a visual identity — naming which pillars give no visual direction and what is missing (mood, shape language, color meaning).
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT — not freeform text
+- [ ] Verdict is exactly one of CONCEPTS / STRONG / CONCERNS (the AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL verdicts) — not APPROVE / REJECT and not freeform text
 - [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS`
-- [ ] Rationale specifically identifies the palette conflict — not a generic "doesn't match style" comment
-- [ ] References the art bible as the authoritative source for the correct palette
+- [ ] Rationale names the specific pillars that give no visual direction and which of the gate's four direction components (visual rule, mood, shape language, color philosophy) they leave open — not a generic "pillars are vague"
+- [ ] Does not rewrite the pillars itself — pillar changes go back to the user and creative-director
 
 ### Case 4: Conflict escalation — correct parent
 **Scenario:** ux-designer proposes using high-contrast, brightly colored icons for the HUD to improve readability. art-director believes this violates the art bible's muted visual language and would undermine the visual identity.
@@ -57,23 +56,32 @@ Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/art-director.md` frontmatter:
 - [ ] References the specific art bible rule being violated
 
 ### Case 5: Context pass — uses provided context
-**Scenario:** Agent receives a gate context block that includes the existing art bible with specific palette values (primary: #8B7355, #6B6B47; accent: #C8A96E) and style rules ("no pure white, no pure black; all shadows have warm undertones"). A new asset is submitted for review.
-**Expected:** Assessment references the specific hex values and style rules from the provided art bible, not generic color theory advice. Any concerns are tied to specific violations of the provided rules.
+**Scenario:** Agent receives a gate context block that includes the existing art bible with specific palette values (primary: #8B7355, #6B6B47; accent: #C8A96E) and style rules ("no pure white, no pure black; all shadows have warm undertones"). A new asset type is submitted for review: the first enemy sprite sheet, whose body colors come from the primary palette but whose outline is pure black (#000000), highlights pure white (#FFFFFF) and shadows a cool blue-grey (#5A6A7A). Request is tagged AD-VISUAL.
+**Expected:** Assessment references the specific hex values and style rules from the provided art bible, not generic color theory advice, and returns `AD-VISUAL: REJECT` — the sprite breaks all three style rules, a style violation to resolve before the asset type is used — with each violation tied to the rule it breaks.
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] References specific palette values from the provided art bible context
-- [ ] Applies the specific style rules (no pure white/black, warm shadow undertones) from the provided document
+- [ ] Applies the specific style rules (no pure white/black, warm shadow undertones) from the provided document, naming the outline, highlight and shadow colors that break them
 - [ ] Does not generate generic art direction feedback disconnected from the supplied art bible
-- [ ] Verdict rationale is traceable to specific lines or rules in the provided context
+- [ ] Verdict token is `AD-VISUAL: REJECT`, with rationale traceable to specific lines or rules in the provided context
+
+### Case 6: Missing gate input — NOT ASSESSED
+**Scenario:** A complete, internally consistent art bible is submitted for sign-off with the pillars and the visual identity anchor, but no platform or performance constraints: the context gives none, `project.yaml` sets no `platform.*` or `performance.*` keys, and `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` still holds only unconfigured placeholders. Request is tagged AD-ART-BIBLE.
+**Expected:** Returns `AD-ART-BIBLE: NOT ASSESSED`, naming the platform and performance constraints as the input it could not read — without them, the gate's check that the asset standards are achievable on the platform cannot be made.
+**Assertions:**
+- [ ] Verdict token is `AD-ART-BIBLE: NOT ASSESSED` — not APPROVE, although every section it could check is sound
+- [ ] Names the platform and performance constraints as the missing input
+- [ ] Does not assume a platform or budget to complete the review
 
 ---
 
 ## Protocol Compliance
 
-- [ ] Returns verdicts using APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT vocabulary only
+- [ ] Returns the verdict vocabulary the invoked gate's definition file lists — APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT for AD-ART-BIBLE and AD-VISUAL; CONCEPTS / STRONG / CONCERNS for AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL; READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY for AD-PHASE-GATE; `NOT ASSESSED`, naming the input, at any gate when an input the gate names is missing
 - [ ] Stays within declared visual domain
 - [ ] Escalates UX-vs-visual conflicts to creative-director
 - [ ] Uses gate IDs in output (e.g., `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE`) not inline prose verdicts
 - [ ] Does not make binding UX interaction, audio, or code implementation decisions
+- [ ] At a phase gate, treats an artifact the target phase requires that the calling skill passes as "none" as a finding (NOT READY or CONCERNS), and one passed as "not expected before [phase]" or "not required at `workflow: [tier]`" as no finding — it judges readiness for the phase being entered, not a later one
 
 ---