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/skills/review/review-all-gdds.md

@@ -2,38 +2,42 @@
 
 ## Skill Summary
 
-`/review-all-gdds` is an Opus-tier skill that performs a holistic cross-GDD review
-across all files in `design/gdd/`. It runs two complementary review phases in
-parallel: Phase 1 checks for consistency (contradictions, formula mismatches,
-stale references, competing ownership), and Phase 2 checks design theory (dominant
-strategies, pillar drift, cognitive overload, economic imbalance). Because the two
-phases are independent, they are spawned simultaneously to save time. The skill
-produces a CONSISTENT / MINOR ISSUES / MAJOR ISSUES verdict and is read-only — no
-files are written without explicit user approval.
+`/review-all-gdds` is an Opus-tier skill that performs a holistic cross-GDD
+review across the system GDDs in `design/gdd/`. After loading everything
+(Phase 1), it runs two independent reviews in parallel as `game-designer`
+sub-agents: Phase 2, Cross-GDD Consistency (dependency bidirectionality, rule
+contradictions, stale references, ownership conflicts, formula compatibility,
+acceptance-criteria conflicts), and Phase 3, Game Design Holism (competing
+progression loops, attention budget, dominant strategies, economic loops,
+difficulty curves, pillar alignment, player-fantasy coherence). Phase 4 walks
+multi-system scenarios. It produces a PASS / NOT ASSESSED / CONCERNS / FAIL
+verdict, and writes `design/gdd/gdd-cross-review-[YYYY-MM-DD].md` and
+systems-index "Needs Revision" statuses only after the user approves.
 
-The skill is itself the holistic review gate in the pipeline. It is invoked after
-individual GDDs are complete and before architecture work begins. It does NOT spawn
-any director gate agents (it IS the director-level review).
+It is invoked after individual GDDs are approved and before architecture work.
+It spawns no director gate agents. At `workflow: minimal` it does not apply (no
+GDDs), so every fixture below sets `modes.workflow: full`.
 
 ---
 
 ## Static Assertions (Structural)
 
-Verified automatically by `/skill-test static` — no fixture needed.
+Checked against the SKILL.md by `/skill-test spec` — no fixture needed.
 
 - [ ] Has required frontmatter fields: `name`, `description`, `argument-hint`, `user-invocable`, `allowed-tools`
 - [ ] Has ≥5 phase headings (complex multi-phase skill)
-- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: CONSISTENT, MINOR ISSUES, MAJOR ISSUES
-- [ ] Does NOT require "May I write" language (read-only skill)
+- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: PASS, NOT ASSESSED, CONCERNS, FAIL
+- [ ] `allowed-tools` includes Write, so "May I write" language is present (Phase 6 report write)
 - [ ] Has a next-step handoff at the end
-- [ ] Documents parallel phase spawning (Phase 1 and Phase 2 are independent)
+- [ ] Documents parallel spawning of Phase 2 (Consistency) and Phase 3 (Design Theory)
 
 ---
 
 ## Director Gate Checks
 
-No director gates — this skill spawns no director gate agents. It IS the holistic
-review; delegating to a director gate would create a circular dependency.
+No director gates — this skill spawns no director gate agents and resolves no
+review mode. It IS the holistic review; its only agents are the two
+`game-designer` sub-agents for Phases 2 and 3.
 
 ---
 
@@ -42,137 +46,202 @@ review; delegating to a director gate would create a circular dependency.
 ### Case 1: Happy Path — Clean GDD set with no conflicts
 
 **Fixture:**
-- `design/gdd/` contains ≥3 system GDDs
-- All GDDs are internally consistent: no formula contradictions, no competing ownership, no stale references
-- All GDDs align with the pillars defined in `design/gdd/game-pillars.md`
+- `project.yaml` sets `modes.workflow: full`
+- `design/gdd/` contains `game-concept.md`, `game-pillars.md` (pillars and
+  anti-pillars), `systems-index.md`, and three system GDDs — `combat.md`,
+  `inventory.md`, `crafting.md` — each with every section Phase 1c loads and a
+  filled `## Cross-References` table whose rows all resolve
+- All GDDs are consistent: no formula contradictions, no competing ownership,
+  no stale references, reciprocal dependencies; every system serves a pillar
+- Nothing a design-theory check would warn on either: one primary progression
+  loop, at most 4 systems active at once, every resource has both a source and a
+  sink, compatible scaling curves, compatible player fantasies
 
 **Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
-1. Skill reads all GDD files in `design/gdd/`
-2. Phase 1 (consistency scan) and Phase 2 (design theory check) spawn in parallel
-3. Phase 1 finds no contradictions, no formula mismatches, no ownership conflicts
-4. Phase 2 finds no pillar drift, no dominant strategies, no cognitive overload
-5. Skill outputs a structured findings table with 0 blocking issues
-6. Verdict: CONSISTENT
+1. Skill greps `## Summary` across `design/gdd/*.md` and shows a manifest ("Found [N] GDDs. Summaries: …")
+2. Skill reads the entity registry, or notes that it is empty and suggests `/consistency-check`
+3. Skill loads the review sections and reports "Loaded [N] system GDDs covering [M] systems. Pillars: […]. Anti-pillars: […]."
+4. Phase 2 and Phase 3 spawn simultaneously as `game-designer` sub-agents, each
+   given the pasted GDD content for its slice (not file paths) and its checklist (2a–2f / 3a–3g)
+5. Phase 4 walks 3–5 multi-system scenarios
+6. Report shows no blocking issues and no warnings; verdict PASS
+7. `AskUserQuestion`: "May I write this review to `design/gdd/gdd-cross-review-[date].md`?"
+8. Closing widget built from project state
 
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] Both review phases are spawned in parallel (not sequentially)
-- [ ] Output includes a findings table (even if empty — shows "No issues found")
-- [ ] Verdict is CONSISTENT when no conflicts are found
-- [ ] Skill does NOT write any files without user approval
-- [ ] Next-step handoff to `/architecture-review` or `/create-architecture` is present
+- [ ] Phase 2 and Phase 3 are spawned in parallel (both `Agent` calls issued before either result is awaited)
+- [ ] Sub-agent prompts carry the GDD section content, not just file paths
+- [ ] The report states the covered set: `GDDs reviewed: [N] of [M] present` and `Not read: none`, and lists the scenarios walked
+- [ ] Verdict is PASS only because there are no blocking issues **and no warnings**, over three readable GDDs — a single warning would make it CONCERNS
+- [ ] The report is written only after the user approves, under an ISO-dated name (`gdd-cross-review-YYYY-MM-DD.md`)
+- [ ] The closing widget offers `/create-architecture` and `/gate-check` (both allowed on PASS)
 
 ---
 
 ### Case 2: Failure Path — Conflicting rules between two GDDs
 
 **Fixture:**
-- GDD-A defines a floor value (e.g. "minimum [output] is [N]")
-- GDD-B states a mechanic that bypasses that floor (e.g. "[mechanic] can reduce [output] to 0")
-- The two GDDs are otherwise complete and valid
+- `project.yaml` sets `modes.workflow: full`
+- `combat.md` defines a floor: "Minimum damage after armour reduction is 1"
+- `status-effects.md` states a mechanic that bypasses it: "Poison ignores armour
+  and can reduce damage to 0"
+- The two GDDs are otherwise complete and valid; `game-pillars.md` defines the
+  pillars and `systems-index.md` lists both systems
 
 **Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
-1. Phase 1 (consistency scan) detects the contradiction between GDD-A and GDD-B
-2. Conflict is reported with: both filenames, the specific conflicting rules, and severity HIGH
-3. Verdict: MAJOR ISSUES
-4. Handoff instructs user to resolve the conflict and re-run before proceeding
+1. Phase 2 detects the floor/ceiling contradiction
+2. Report prints a `🔴 Rule Contradiction` entry quoting both rules and asking which GDD is authoritative
+3. The issue sits under Consistency Issues → Blocking; both GDDs appear in "GDDs Flagged for Revision"
+4. Verdict: FAIL, with "If FAIL — required actions before re-running"
+5. After the report write question, a second `AskUserQuestion` offers to mark the flagged GDDs `Needs Revision` in `systems-index.md`
 
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] Verdict is MAJOR ISSUES (not CONSISTENT or MINOR ISSUES)
+- [ ] Verdict is FAIL (not PASS, CONCERNS or NOT ASSESSED)
 - [ ] Both GDD filenames are named in the conflict entry
-- [ ] The specific contradicting rules are quoted or described (not vague "conflict found")
-- [ ] Issue is classified as severity HIGH (blocking)
-- [ ] Skill does NOT auto-resolve the conflict
+- [ ] The specific contradicting rules are quoted (not a vague "conflict found")
+- [ ] The issue is classified as Blocking (🔴), and both GDDs are in the flagged table with Priority Blocking
+- [ ] Skill does NOT decide which GDD is right and does NOT edit either GDD
+- [ ] If the user approves the systems-index update, the status is written as exactly `Needs Revision` with no parenthetical
+- [ ] The closing widget offers neither `/create-architecture` nor `/gate-check` (verdict is FAIL)
 
 ---
 
-### Case 3: Partial Path — Single GDD with orphaned dependency reference
+### Case 3: Partial Path — Cross-reference to a GDD that does not exist
 
 **Fixture:**
-- GDD-A lists a dependency in its Dependencies section pointing to "system-B"
-- No GDD for system-B exists in `design/gdd/`
-- All other GDDs are consistent
+- `project.yaml` sets `modes.workflow: full`
+- `design/gdd/` holds `game-pillars.md`, `systems-index.md` and two consistent
+  system GDDs, `crafting.md` and `inventory.md`
+- `crafting.md`'s `## Cross-References` table has a row whose Target GDD is
+  `system-b.md`; no `design/gdd/system-b.md` exists
+- `systems-index.md` lists system-b as the next system with Status: Not Started
+- Nothing else would warn
 
 **Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
-1. Phase 1 detects the orphaned dependency reference in GDD-A
-2. Issue is reported as: DEPENDENCY GAP — GDD-A references system-B which has no GDD
-3. No other conflicts found
-4. Verdict: MINOR ISSUES (dependency gap is advisory, not blocking by itself)
+1. Phase 2's stale-reference check (2c) confirms each Cross-References row's
+   Target GDD exists, and finds `system-b.md` missing
+2. Because `systems-index.md` lists system-b, the reference is a dependency on
+   planned work: a `⚠️ Stale Reference` Warning naming `crafting.md` and the
+   missing target, to re-check when that GDD is written
+3. No other issues found; verdict CONCERNS (warnings, nothing blocking)
+4. Closing widget includes `/design-system system-b` (next in design order)
 
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] Verdict is MINOR ISSUES (not MAJOR ISSUES for a single orphaned reference)
-- [ ] The specific GDD filename and the missing dependency name are reported
-- [ ] Skill suggests running `/design-system system-B` to resolve the gap
-- [ ] Skill does NOT skip or silently ignore the missing dependency
+- [ ] The finding names `crafting.md` and the missing `system-b.md`
+- [ ] It is reported under Warnings (⚠️), not Blocking — because the systems index lists system-b as planned
+- [ ] Verdict is CONCERNS — not FAIL for a reference to planned work, and not an unqualified PASS
+- [ ] The closing widget offers `/design-system system-b`, and offers `/create-architecture` but not `/gate-check` (which requires PASS)
+- [ ] Skill does NOT skip or silently ignore the missing target
+
+**Case 3b — the target is in neither place:** the same fixture, except
+`systems-index.md` has no entry for system-b. Nothing will ever define it.
+
+**Assertions (3b):**
+- [ ] The reference is reported as 🔴 Blocking, and `crafting.md` appears in "GDDs Flagged for Revision" with Priority Blocking
+- [ ] Verdict is FAIL, and the closing widget offers neither `/create-architecture` nor `/gate-check`
 
 ---
 
-### Case 4: Edge Case — No GDD files found
+### Case 4: Edge Case — Fewer than two system GDDs
 
 **Fixture:**
-- `design/gdd/` directory is empty or does not exist
-- No GDD files are present
+- `project.yaml` sets `modes.workflow: full`
+- `design/gdd/` contains `systems-index.md` and a single system GDD, `combat.md`
 
 **Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
-1. Skill attempts to read files in `design/gdd/`
-2. No files found — skill outputs an error with guidance
-3. Skill recommends running `/brainstorm` and `/design-system` before re-running
-4. Skill does NOT produce a verdict (CONSISTENT / MINOR ISSUES / MAJOR ISSUES)
+1. Skill loads what exists and counts the system GDDs
+2. Fewer than 2 → skill stops with: "Cross-GDD review requires at least 2 system
+   GDDs. Write more GDDs first, then re-run `/review-all-gdds`."
+3. No review phase runs and no report is offered
 
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] Skill outputs a clear error message when no GDDs are found
-- [ ] No verdict is produced when the directory is empty
-- [ ] Skill recommends the correct next action (`/brainstorm` or `/design-system`)
-- [ ] Skill does NOT crash or produce a partial report
+- [ ] Skill outputs the "requires at least 2 system GDDs" stop message
+- [ ] Neither Phase 2 nor Phase 3 sub-agent is spawned
+- [ ] No verdict of PASS is produced for the single document
+- [ ] No report write is offered and no file is written
 
 ---
 
-### Case 5: Director Gate — No gate spawned regardless of review mode
+### Case 5: Director Gate — none spawned, whatever the review mode
 
 **Fixture:**
-- `design/gdd/` contains ≥2 consistent system GDDs
-- `production/session-state/review-mode.txt` exists with content `full`
+- `project.yaml` sets `modes.workflow: full`
+- `design/gdd/` holds the Case 1 set: concept, pillars, systems index and three
+  consistent system GDDs
+- 5a: `modes.review_mode: full`; 5b: `modes.review_mode: solo`
 
 **Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
-1. Skill reads all GDDs and runs the two review phases
-2. Skill does NOT read `review-mode.txt`
-3. Skill does NOT spawn any director gate agent (CD-, TD-, PR-, AD- prefixed)
-4. Skill completes and outputs its verdict normally
-5. Review mode setting has no effect on this skill's behavior
+1. The resolved config block requests only `automation`, `workflow` and
+   `system_overrides` — review mode is not consulted
+2. In both 5a and 5b, the same two `game-designer` sub-agents run Phases 2 and 3
+3. No director gate agent is spawned; the verdict is produced normally
 
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] No director gate agents are spawned at any point
-- [ ] Skill does NOT read `production/session-state/review-mode.txt`
-- [ ] Output does not contain any "Gate: [GATE-ID]" or "skipped" gate entries
-- [ ] The skill produces a verdict regardless of review mode
-- [ ] R4 metric: gate count for this skill = 0 in all modes
+- [ ] No director gate agents (CD-, TD-, PR-, AD-, LP- prefixed gates) are spawned in either mode
+- [ ] Review mode changes nothing: under `solo` the two `game-designer` sub-agents still run
+- [ ] Output contains no "Gate: [GATE-ID]" or "[GATE-ID] skipped" entries
+- [ ] The skill produces a verdict in both modes
+- [ ] The only `Agent` spawns in the run are the Phase 2 and Phase 3 `game-designer` sub-agents
+
+---
+
+### Case 6: NOT ASSESSED — fewer than two readable GDDs
+
+**Fixture:**
+- `project.yaml` sets `modes.workflow: full`
+- `design/gdd/` holds `game-pillars.md`, `systems-index.md` and two system GDDs:
+  `combat.md`, complete, and `inventory.md`, which has the template's headings but
+  only placeholder text under them
+
+**Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
+
+**Expected behavior:**
+1. Two system GDDs exist, so the "requires at least 2 system GDDs" stop does not fire
+2. `inventory.md` is present but empty — not reviewable — so only one GDD can be
+   compared, and a clean result would mean only that nothing was compared
+3. Verdict NOT ASSESSED; "If NOT ASSESSED — what could not be reviewed, and why"
+   names `inventory.md` as placeholder-only and says a cross-review needs two
+   readable GDDs
+4. The report states `GDDs reviewed: 1 of 2 present`
+
+**Assertions:**
+- [ ] Verdict is NOT ASSESSED — not PASS, although no contradiction was found
+- [ ] The report names `inventory.md` as present but not reviewable, and states `GDDs reviewed: 1 of 2 present`
+- [ ] A GDD that could not be read at all would be named on the report's `Not read:` line under every verdict, and is a NOT ASSESSED trigger like an empty one
+- [ ] The closing widget offers neither `/create-architecture` nor `/gate-check`
 
 ---
 
 ## Protocol Compliance
 
-- [ ] Phase 1 (consistency) and Phase 2 (design theory) spawned in parallel — not sequentially
-- [ ] Does NOT write any files without "May I write" approval
-- [ ] Findings table shown before any write ask
-- [ ] Verdict is one of exactly: CONSISTENT, MINOR ISSUES, MAJOR ISSUES
-- [ ] Ends with appropriate handoff: MAJOR ISSUES → fix and re-run; MINOR ISSUES → may proceed with awareness; CONSISTENT → `/create-architecture`
+- [ ] Phase 2 (Consistency) and Phase 3 (Design Theory) spawned in parallel — not sequentially
+- [ ] The full analysis is shown before any write is requested
+- [ ] Does NOT write the report or update `systems-index.md` without `AskUserQuestion` approval
+- [ ] Verdict is one of exactly: PASS, NOT ASSESSED, CONCERNS, FAIL
+- [ ] Every issue cites the GDD, section and text involved
+- [ ] Ends with an `AskUserQuestion` handoff built from the verdict: FAIL or NOT ASSESSED → neither `/create-architecture` nor `/gate-check`; CONCERNS → `/create-architecture` only; PASS → both
 
 ---
 
 ## Coverage Notes
 
-- Economic balance analysis (source/sink loops) requires cross-GDD resource data — covered
-  structurally by Case 2 (the conflict detection pattern is the same).
-- The design theory phase (Phase 2) checks including dominant strategy detection and
-  cognitive overload are not individually fixture-tested — they follow the same
-  pattern as consistency checks and are validated via the pillar drift case structure.
-- The `since-last-review` scoping mode is not tested here — it is a runtime concern.
+- Economic loop analysis (3d, source/sink loops) is not fixture-tested. Case 2
+  exercises Phase 2's rule-contradiction check — a different checklist, run by
+  the other sub-agent — so it says nothing about 3d.
+- The design theory phase (Phase 3) checks, including dominant strategy detection
+  and cognitive overload, are not individually fixture-tested.
+- Case 6 covers the fewer-than-two-readable-GDDs trigger, through a
+  present-but-empty GDD. The NOT ASSESSED triggers for undefined pillars and for
+  a sub-agent that returns no report are not fixture-tested.
+- The `since-last-review` mode (`.claude/scripts/review-scope.sh`) and the
+  `consistency` / `design-theory` focus modes are not tested here.