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/creative-director.md

@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
 ## Agent Summary
 **Domain owned:** Creative vision, game pillars, GDD alignment, systems decomposition feedback, narrative direction, playtest feedback interpretation, phase gate (creative aspect).
 **Does NOT own:** Technical architecture or implementation details (delegates to technical-director), production scheduling (producer), visual art style execution (delegates to art-director).
-**Model tier:** Opus (multi-document synthesis, high-stakes phase gate verdicts).
 **Gate IDs handled:** CD-PILLARS, CD-GDD-ALIGN, CD-SYSTEMS, CD-NARRATIVE, CD-PLAYTEST, CD-PHASE-GATE.
 
 ---
@@ -13,8 +12,8 @@
 Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/creative-director.md` frontmatter:
 
 - [ ] `description:` field is present and domain-specific (references creative vision, pillars, GDD alignment — not generic)
-- [ ] `allowed-tools:` list is read-heavy; should not include Bash unless justified by a creative workflow need
-- [ ] Model tier is `claude-opus-4-8` per coordination-rules.md (directors with gate synthesis = Opus)
+- [ ] `tools:` reads Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, WebSearch and `disallowedTools:` lists Bash
+- [ ] Model tier is `opus` — frontmatter `model:` reads exactly `opus` (tiers: `.claude/docs/model-tiers.md`)
 - [ ] Agent definition does not claim authority over technical architecture or production scheduling
 
 ---
@@ -22,12 +21,12 @@ Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/creative-director.md` frontmatte
 ## Test Cases
 
 ### Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output format
-**Scenario:** A game concept document is submitted for pillar review. The concept describes a narrative survival game built around three pillars: "emergent stories," "meaningful sacrifice," and "lived-in world." Request is tagged CD-PILLARS.
-**Expected:** Returns `CD-PILLARS: APPROVE` with rationale citing how each pillar is represented in the concept and any reinforcing or weakening signals found in the document.
+**Scenario:** The pillar set for a narrative survival game is submitted for a stress test, with its anti-pillars, core fantasy and unique hook. The hook names its closest comparable — "Like *Don't Starve*, AND ALSO every survivor you lose changes the world for good" — and none of the three pillars is a goal that comparable is built around. It has three pillars — "emergent stories," "meaningful sacrifice," and "lived-in world" — each with a definition and a design test that names a real decision it would settle; the pillars pull against each other (sacrifice vs. a world the player wants to preserve). Request is tagged CD-PILLARS.
+**Expected:** Returns `CD-PILLARS: APPROVE` with specific feedback on each pillar, judged by the gate's criteria: is it falsifiable, does it create tension with the others, does it differentiate the game, would it settle a real design disagreement.
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
 - [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `CD-PILLARS: APPROVE` (gate ID prefix, colon, verdict keyword)
-- [ ] Rationale references the three specific pillars by name, not generic creative advice
+- [ ] Gives feedback on each of the three pillars by name against the gate's criteria (falsifiability, tension, differentiation from *Don't Starve*), not generic creative advice
 - [ ] Output stays within creative scope — does not comment on engine feasibility or sprint schedule
 
 ### Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects or escalates
@@ -36,16 +35,16 @@ Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/creative-director.md` frontmatte
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Does not make any binding decision about the schema design
 - [ ] Explicitly names `technical-director` as the correct handler
-- [ ] May note whether the data model has creative implications (e.g., what player data is tracked), but defers structural decisions entirely
+- [ ] Any comment on the schema is limited to its creative implications (e.g., which player choices a save must remember) — it proposes no table, column, key or query design
 
 ### Case 3: Gate verdict — correct vocabulary
-**Scenario:** A GDD for the "Crafting" system is submitted. Section 4 (Formulas) defines a resource decay formula that punishes exploration — contradicting the Player Fantasy section which calls for "freedom to roam without fear." Request is tagged CD-GDD-ALIGN.
-**Expected:** Returns `CD-GDD-ALIGN: CONCERNS` with specific citation of the contradiction between the formula behavior and the Player Fantasy statement.
+**Scenario:** A GDD for the "Crafting" system is submitted with the game's pillars — "curiosity is always rewarded" and "the world remembers" — and its MDA target, Discovery first. Section 4 (Formulas) defines a resource decay formula that punishes exploration — contradicting the Player Fantasy section which calls for "freedom to roam without fear," and working against the curiosity pillar. Every other section serves the pillars, and retuning the formula would resolve the conflict without redesigning the system. Request is tagged CD-GDD-ALIGN.
+**Expected:** Returns `CD-GDD-ALIGN: CONCERNS` with specific citation of the contradiction between the formula behavior and the Player Fantasy statement. The fix is stated as a creative constraint; the formula itself is left to the design team.
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT — not freeform text
 - [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `CD-GDD-ALIGN: CONCERNS`
-- [ ] Rationale quotes or directly references GDD Section 4 (Formulas) and the Player Fantasy section
-- [ ] Does not prescribe a specific formula fix — that belongs to systems-designer
+- [ ] Rationale quotes or directly references GDD Section 4 (Formulas), the Player Fantasy section and the "curiosity is always rewarded" pillar
+- [ ] States the fix as a creative constraint (e.g., decay must not punish roaming) and leaves the formula to `game-designer`, its delegate for mechanical design — does not author replacement formula values
 
 ### Case 4: Conflict escalation — correct parent
 **Scenario:** technical-director raises a concern that the core loop mechanic (real-time branching conversations) is prohibitively expensive to implement and recommends cutting it. creative-director disagrees on creative grounds.
@@ -57,7 +56,7 @@ Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/creative-director.md` frontmatte
 - [ ] Does not claim to own implementation decisions
 
 ### Case 5: Context pass — uses provided context
-**Scenario:** Agent receives a gate context block that includes the game pillars document (`design/gdd/pillars.md`) and a new mechanic spec for review. The pillars document defines "player authorship," "consequence permanence," and "world responsiveness" as the three core pillars.
+**Scenario:** Agent receives a gate context block that includes the game pillars document (`design/gdd/game-pillars.md`) and a new system GDD for review. The pillars document defines "player authorship," "consequence permanence," and "world responsiveness" as the three core pillars. Request is tagged CD-GDD-ALIGN.
 **Expected:** Assessment uses the exact pillar vocabulary from the provided document, not generic creative heuristics. Any approval or concern is tied back to one or more of the three named pillars.
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Uses the exact pillar names from the provided context document
@@ -65,20 +64,29 @@ Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/creative-director.md` frontmatte
 - [ ] References the specific pillar(s) most relevant to the mechanic under review
 - [ ] Does not reference pillars not present in the provided document
 
+### Case 6: Missing gate input — NOT ASSESSED
+**Scenario:** A complete, internally consistent system GDD is submitted with its Player Fantasy section, but no game pillars: the context gives none, and none of `design/gdd/game-concept.md`, `design/gdd/game-pillars.md` or `design/game-brief.md` exists. Request is tagged CD-GDD-ALIGN.
+**Expected:** Returns `CD-GDD-ALIGN: NOT ASSESSED`, naming the game pillars as the input it could not read. Alignment with pillars nobody supplied cannot be judged, so no alignment verdict is given.
+**Assertions:**
+- [ ] Verdict token is `CD-GDD-ALIGN: NOT ASSESSED` — not APPROVE, although nothing in the GDD itself looks wrong
+- [ ] Names the game pillars as the missing input
+- [ ] Does not infer pillars from the GDD under review and judge alignment against them
+
 ---
 
 ## 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 CD-PILLARS, CD-GDD-ALIGN, CD-SYSTEMS, CD-NARRATIVE and CD-PLAYTEST; READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY for CD-PHASE-GATE; `NOT ASSESSED`, naming the input, at any gate when an input the gate names is missing
 - [ ] Stays within declared creative domain
 - [ ] Escalates conflicts by presenting trade-offs to user rather than unilateral override
 - [ ] Uses gate IDs in output (e.g., `CD-PILLARS: APPROVE`) not inline prose verdicts
 - [ ] Does not make binding cross-domain decisions (technical, production, art execution)
+- [ ] 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
 
 ---
 
 ## Coverage Notes
 - Multi-gate scenario (e.g., single submission triggering both CD-PILLARS and CD-GDD-ALIGN) is not covered here — deferred to integration tests.
-- CD-PHASE-GATE (full phase advancement) involves synthesizing multiple sub-gate results; this complex case is deferred.
-- Playtest report interpretation (CD-PLAYTEST) is not covered — a dedicated case should be added when the playtest-report skill produces structured output.
+- CD-PHASE-GATE (the creative director's own readiness review, which `/gate-check` runs at `workflow: full`) has no case yet.
+- CD-PLAYTEST (review of a `/playtest-report` report) has no case yet.
 - Interaction with art-director on visual-pillar alignment is not covered.