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/team/team-narrative.md

@@ -3,14 +3,22 @@
 ## Skill Summary
 
 Orchestrates the narrative team through a five-phase pipeline: narrative direction
-(narrative-director) → world foundation + dialogue drafting (world-builder and writer
-in parallel) → level narrative integration (level-designer) → consistency review
-(narrative-director) → polish + localization compliance (writer, localization-lead,
-and world-builder in parallel). Uses `AskUserQuestion` at each phase transition to
-present proposals as selectable options. Produces a narrative summary report and
-delivers narrative documents via subagents that each enforce the "May I write?"
-protocol. Verdict is COMPLETE when all phases succeed, or BLOCKED when a dependency
-is unresolved.
+(narrative-director) → world foundation, dialogue drafting and visual direction
+(world-builder, writer and art-director in parallel) → level narrative integration
+(level-designer) → consistency review (narrative-director) → polish + localization
+compliance (writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel). Phase 0
+resolves `review_mode`, `automation` and `team.size` and the skill announces the
+active set before Phase 1 — at the default `individual` only writer is spawned
+(narrative-director only on an explicit pillar conflict), `small` adds
+narrative-director, plus localization-lead and world-builder when `review_mode` is
+`full`, and `studio` activates every narrative agent whatever the review mode. Each agent drafts to a concrete path
+under `production/narrative/[content-slug]/` named in the skill's path table;
+Phase 4 runs the ND-CONSISTENCY gate; the orchestrator writes the final documents
+to `design/narrative/` after one approval. Uses
+`AskUserQuestion` at each phase transition. Produces a narrative summary report.
+Verdict is COMPLETE when all phases succeed — `COMPLETE — consistency NOT ASSESSED
+([input])` when the ND-CONSISTENCY review could not assess — or BLOCKED when a
+dependency is unresolved.
 
 ---
 
@@ -20,12 +28,15 @@ is unresolved.
 - [ ] Has ≥2 phase headings
 - [ ] Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
 - [ ] Contains "File Write Protocol" section
-- [ ] File writes are delegated to sub-agents — orchestrator does not write files directly
-- [ ] Sub-agents enforce "May I write to [path]?" before any write
+- [ ] Sub-agents write drafts under `production/narrative/[content-slug]/`; the orchestrator writes only the final `design/narrative/` documents, after one "May I write" approval
+- [ ] Names a concrete draft path per agent (including level-designer and localization-lead) and the final `design/narrative/` document each design artifact becomes — localization-lead's review is not one, and stays in `production/`
+- [ ] Every agent prompt ends with the return contract: path written, ≤5-bullet summary, BLOCKED/CONCERNS items one line each
+- [ ] Defines a phase gate as a decision point the pipeline itself lists, whatever the `automation` mode, and claims no director spawn at phase gates
 - [ ] Has a next-step handoff at the end (references `/design-review`, `/localize extract`, `/dev-story`)
-- [ ] Error Recovery Protocol section is present
-- [ ] `AskUserQuestion` is used at phase transitions before proceeding
-- [ ] Phase 2 explicitly spawns world-builder and writer in parallel
+- [ ] Error Recovery Protocol section is present: verify a named artifact is on disk, surface BLOCKED immediately, always produce a partial report, full procedure in `.claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md`
+- [ ] `AskUserQuestion` is used at phase transitions before proceeding (`collaborative` mode)
+- [ ] Phase 0 resolves `team.size`, and the skill requires a one-line active-set announcement before Phase 1
+- [ ] Phase 2 explicitly spawns world-builder, writer and art-director in parallel
 - [ ] Phase 5 explicitly spawns writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel
 
 ---
@@ -35,6 +46,7 @@ is unresolved.
 ### Case 1: Happy Path — All five phases complete, narrative doc delivered
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `team.size: studio`, `automation: collaborative`
 - A game concept and GDD exist for the target feature (e.g., `design/gdd/faction-intro.md`)
 - Character voice profiles exist (e.g., `design/narrative/characters/`)
 - Existing lore entries exist for cross-reference (e.g., `design/narrative/lore/`)
@@ -43,27 +55,32 @@ is unresolved.
 **Input:** `/team-narrative faction introduction cutscene for the Ironveil faction`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
-1. Phase 1: narrative-director is spawned; outputs a narrative brief defining the story beat, characters involved, emotional tone, and lore dependencies
-2. `AskUserQuestion` presents the narrative brief; user approves before Phase 2 begins
-3. Phase 2: world-builder and writer are spawned in parallel; world-builder produces lore entries for the Ironveil faction; writer drafts dialogue lines using character voice profiles
-4. `AskUserQuestion` presents world foundation and dialogue drafts; user approves before Phase 3 begins
-5. Phase 3: level-designer is spawned; produces environmental storytelling layout, trigger placement, and pacing plan
-6. `AskUserQuestion` presents level narrative plan; user approves before Phase 4 begins
-7. Phase 4: narrative-director reviews all dialogue against voice profiles, verifies lore consistency, confirms pacing; approves or flags issues
-8. `AskUserQuestion` presents review results; user approves before Phase 5 begins
-9. Phase 5: writer, localization-lead, and world-builder are spawned in parallel; writer performs final self-review; localization-lead validates i18n compliance; world-builder finalizes canon levels
-10. Final summary report is presented; subagent asks "May I write the narrative document to [path]?" before writing
-11. Verdict: COMPLETE
+1. Before any spawn, one line announces the active set for `team.size: studio`
+2. Phase 1: narrative-director is spawned; writes a narrative brief draft to `production/narrative/[content-slug]/brief.md` defining the story beat, characters involved, emotional tone, and lore dependencies
+3. `AskUserQuestion` presents the narrative brief; user approves before Phase 2 begins
+4. Phase 2: world-builder, writer and art-director are spawned in parallel; world-builder drafts Ironveil lore entries, writer drafts dialogue using character voice profiles, and art-director drafts visual direction — each under `production/narrative/[content-slug]/`
+5. Phase gate: all three Phase 2 outputs are collected, then `AskUserQuestion` presents the lore, dialogue and visual direction summaries; user approves before Phase 3 begins
+6. Phase 3: level-designer is spawned; produces environmental storytelling layout, trigger placement, and pacing plan
+7. `AskUserQuestion` presents level narrative plan; user approves before Phase 4 begins
+8. Phase 4: narrative-director is spawned with the ND-CONSISTENCY gate; reviews voices, lore and pacing and returns APPROVE
+9. `AskUserQuestion` presents review results; user approves before Phase 5 begins
+10. Phase 5: writer, localization-lead, and world-builder are spawned in parallel; writer performs final self-review; localization-lead validates i18n compliance; world-builder finalizes canon levels
+11. The orchestrator lists the final documents and asks once, "May I write these [N] narrative documents to `design/narrative/`?"; on approval it writes them
+12. Final summary report is presented
+13. Verdict: COMPLETE
 
 **Assertions:**
+- [ ] Active-set line naming `team.size: studio` appears before the first agent is spawned
 - [ ] narrative-director is spawned in Phase 1 before any other agents
 - [ ] `AskUserQuestion` appears after Phase 1 output and before Phase 2 launch
-- [ ] world-builder and writer Task calls are issued simultaneously in Phase 2 (not sequentially)
+- [ ] world-builder, writer and art-director Agent calls are issued simultaneously in Phase 2 (not sequentially)
 - [ ] level-designer is not launched until Phase 2 `AskUserQuestion` is approved
-- [ ] narrative-director is re-spawned in Phase 4 for consistency review
+- [ ] narrative-director is re-spawned in Phase 4 using gate ND-CONSISTENCY — in every review mode, since it is this pipeline's own review and `review_mode` never skips it — and its APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT verdict decides whether Phase 5 starts
 - [ ] Phase 5 spawns all three agents (writer, localization-lead, world-builder) simultaneously
+- [ ] Each agent prompt names its draft path from the skill's path table
+- [ ] Nothing is written under `design/narrative/` before the single "May I write" approval
 - [ ] Summary report includes: narrative brief status, lore entries created/updated, dialogue lines written, level narrative integration points, consistency review results
-- [ ] No files are written by the orchestrator directly
+- [ ] The orchestrator writes nothing except the approved final documents
 - [ ] Verdict is COMPLETE after delivery
 
 ---
@@ -71,6 +88,7 @@ is unresolved.
 ### Case 2: Lore Contradiction Found — world-builder finds conflict before writer proceeds
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `team.size: studio`, `automation: collaborative`
 - Existing lore entry at `design/narrative/lore/ironveil-history.md` states the Ironveil faction was founded 200 years ago
 - The new narrative brief (from Phase 1) states the Ironveil were founded 50 years ago
 - The writer has been spawned in parallel with the world-builder in Phase 2
@@ -83,11 +101,11 @@ is unresolved.
 3. world-builder returns BLOCKED with reason: "Lore contradiction found — founding date conflicts with `design/narrative/lore/ironveil-history.md`"
 4. Orchestrator surfaces the contradiction immediately: "world-builder: BLOCKED — Lore contradiction: founding date in narrative brief (50 years ago) conflicts with existing canon (200 years ago in `ironveil-history.md`)"
 5. Orchestrator assesses dependency: the writer's dialogue depends on canon lore — the writer's draft cannot be finalized without resolving the contradiction
-6. `AskUserQuestion` presents options:
-   - Revise the narrative brief to match existing canon (200 years ago)
-   - Update the existing lore entry to reflect the new canon (50 years ago)
+6. `AskUserQuestion` presents the error-recovery options:
+   - Skip world-builder and note the gap in the final report
+   - Retry with narrower scope (e.g., world-builder works against the canon the user confirms)
    - Stop here and resolve the contradiction in the lore docs first
-7. Writer output is preserved but flagged as pending canon resolution — work is not discarded
+7. Writer output is preserved in the partial report — work is not discarded
 8. Orchestrator does NOT proceed to Phase 3 until the contradiction is resolved or user explicitly chooses to skip
 
 **Assertions:**
@@ -95,7 +113,7 @@ is unresolved.
 - [ ] Orchestrator does not silently resolve the contradiction by picking one version
 - [ ] `AskUserQuestion` presents at least 3 options including "stop and resolve first"
 - [ ] Writer's draft output is preserved in the partial report, not discarded
-- [ ] Phase 3 (level-designer) is not launched until the user resolves the contradiction
+- [ ] Phase 3 (level-designer) is not launched until the user resolves the contradiction or explicitly chooses to skip world-builder
 - [ ] Verdict is BLOCKED (not COMPLETE) if the user stops to resolve the contradiction
 
 ---
@@ -109,43 +127,44 @@ is unresolved.
 
 **Expected behavior:**
 1. Skill detects no argument is provided
-2. Outputs usage guidance: e.g., "Usage: `/team-narrative [narrative content description]` — describe the story content, scene, or narrative area to work on (e.g., `boss encounter cutscene`, `faction intro dialogue`, `tutorial narrative`)"
+2. Outputs usage guidance: e.g., "Usage: `/team-narrative [narrative content description] [--review full|lean|solo]` — describe the story content, scene, or narrative area to work on (e.g., `boss encounter cutscene`, `faction intro dialogue`, `tutorial narrative`)"
 3. Skill exits without spawning any agents
 
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Skill does NOT spawn any agents when no argument is provided
-- [ ] Usage message includes the correct invocation format with an argument example
+- [ ] Usage message shows the full argument-hint — `/team-narrative [narrative content description] [--review full|lean|solo]` — and an argument example
 - [ ] Skill does NOT attempt to guess or infer a narrative topic from project files
 - [ ] No `AskUserQuestion` is used — output is direct guidance
 
 ---
 
-### Case 4: Localization Compliance — localization-lead flags a non-translatable string
+### Case 4: Localization Compliance — localization-lead blocks on a non-translatable string
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `team.size: studio`, `automation: collaborative`
 - Phases 1–4 complete successfully
 - Phase 5 begins; writer and world-builder complete without issues
-- localization-lead finds a dialogue line that uses a hardcoded formatted date string (e.g., `"On March 12th, Year 3"`) that cannot survive locale-specific translation without a locale-aware formatter
+- localization-lead finds a dialogue line that uses a hardcoded formatted date string (e.g., `"On March 12th, Year 3"`) that cannot survive locale-specific translation without a locale-aware formatter, and returns it as a BLOCKED item in its return contract
 
 **Input:** `/team-narrative ironveil faction introduction cutscene` (Phase 5 scenario)
 
 **Expected behavior:**
 1. Phase 5 spawns writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel
-2. localization-lead completes its review and flags: "String key `dialogue.ironveil.intro.003` contains a hardcoded date format (`March 12th, Year 3`) that will not localize correctly — requires a locale-aware date placeholder"
-3. Orchestrator surfaces the localization blocker in the summary report
-4. The localization issue is labeled as BLOCKING in the final report (not advisory)
-5. `AskUserQuestion` presents options:
-   - Fix the string now (writer revises the line)
-   - Note the gap and deliver the narrative doc with the issue flagged
+2. localization-lead returns BLOCKED: "String key `dialogue.ironveil.intro.003` contains a hardcoded date format (`March 12th, Year 3`) that will not localize correctly — requires a locale-aware date placeholder"
+3. Orchestrator surfaces it immediately: "localization-lead: BLOCKED — [reason with the string key]"
+4. writer's and world-builder's Phase 5 outputs are kept in the partial report
+5. `AskUserQuestion` presents the error-recovery options:
+   - Skip and note the gap in the final report (deliver with the string flagged)
+   - Retry with narrower scope (e.g., the writer revises that one line, then localization-lead re-checks it)
    - Stop and resolve before finalizing
-6. If the user chooses to proceed with the issue flagged, verdict is COMPLETE with noted localization debt; if user stops, verdict is BLOCKED
+6. If the user skips, the final summary lists the unfixed string key among its unresolved items; if the user stops, the verdict is `BLOCKED — [reason]`
 
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] localization-lead is spawned in Phase 5 simultaneously with writer and world-builder
 - [ ] Hardcoded date format is identified as a localization blocker (not silently passed)
-- [ ] The specific string key and reason are included in the issue report
-- [ ] `AskUserQuestion` offers the option to fix now vs. flag and proceed
-- [ ] Verdict notes the localization debt if the user proceeds without fixing
+- [ ] The specific string key and reason are included in the surfaced BLOCKED message
+- [ ] `AskUserQuestion` offers skip-and-note-gap, retry, and stop options
+- [ ] If the user proceeds without fixing, the final report names the unfixed string key; if the user stops, the verdict is BLOCKED
 - [ ] Skill does NOT automatically rewrite the offending line without user approval
 
 ---
@@ -153,23 +172,24 @@ is unresolved.
 ### Case 5: Writer Blocked — Missing character voice profiles
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `team.size: studio`, `automation: collaborative`
 - Phase 1 narrative-director produces a narrative brief referencing two characters: Commander Varek and Advisor Selene
 - No character voice profiles exist in `design/narrative/characters/` for either character
-- Phase 2 begins; world-builder proceeds normally
+- Phase 2 begins; world-builder and art-director proceed normally
 
 **Input:** `/team-narrative ironveil surrender negotiation scene`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
 1. Phase 1 completes; narrative brief lists Commander Varek and Advisor Selene as characters
-2. Phase 2: writer is spawned in parallel with world-builder
+2. Phase 2: writer is spawned in parallel with world-builder and art-director
 3. writer returns BLOCKED: "Cannot produce dialogue — no voice profiles found for Commander Varek or Advisor Selene in `design/narrative/characters/`. Voice profiles required to match character tone and speech patterns."
 4. Orchestrator surfaces the blocker immediately: "writer: BLOCKED — Missing prerequisite: character voice profiles for Commander Varek and Advisor Selene"
 5. world-builder output is preserved; partial report is produced with lore entries
-6. `AskUserQuestion` presents options:
-   - Create voice profiles first (redirects to the narrative-director or design workflow)
-   - Provide minimal voice direction inline and retry the writer with that context
+6. `AskUserQuestion` presents the error-recovery options:
+   - Skip writer and note the gap in the final report
+   - Retry with narrower scope (e.g., minimal voice direction supplied inline)
    - Stop here and create voice profiles before proceeding
-7. Orchestrator does NOT proceed to Phase 3 (level-designer) without writer output
+7. Orchestrator does NOT proceed to Phase 3 (level-designer) without writer output unless the user explicitly chooses to skip
 
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Writer block is surfaced before Phase 3 begins
@@ -183,13 +203,16 @@ is unresolved.
 
 ## Protocol Compliance
 
-- [ ] `AskUserQuestion` is used after every phase output before the next phase launches
-- [ ] Parallel spawning: Phase 2 (world-builder + writer) and Phase 5 (writer + localization-lead + world-builder) issue all Task calls before waiting for results
-- [ ] No files are written by the orchestrator directly — all writes are delegated to sub-agents
-- [ ] Each sub-agent enforces the "May I write to [path]?" protocol before any write
+- [ ] At the default `team.size: individual`, the run opens with `Active set (team.size: individual): writer.` and a `Not spawned this run:` line naming narrative-director, world-builder, art-director, level-designer and localization-lead, consulted through writer — before any agent is spawned
+- [ ] In `collaborative` mode, `AskUserQuestion` is used after every phase output before the next phase launches
+- [ ] Parallel spawning: Phase 2 (world-builder + writer + art-director) and Phase 5 (writer + localization-lead + world-builder) issue all Agent calls before waiting for results
+- [ ] No write under `design/` happens without a "May I write" approval — `design/` is outside the bounded exception (`production/`, `docs/`, `tests/`)
+- [ ] At `team.size: individual`, Phase 4 does not spawn narrative-director; the output says "ND-CONSISTENCY not run — narrative-director is not active at `team.size: individual`; consistency self-checked by writer." and never presents the writer's self-check as the gate's verdict
+- [ ] An ND-CONSISTENCY `NOT ASSESSED [missing input]` answer is never treated as APPROVE: the missing input is named, then either supplied and the gate re-run, or `ND-CONSISTENCY: NOT ASSESSED — [input]` is carried into the report's consistency review results and the verdict reads `COMPLETE — consistency NOT ASSESSED ([input])`, never a plain COMPLETE
+- [ ] A phase whose named artifact is missing on disk is treated as failed, not done
 - [ ] BLOCKED status from any agent is surfaced immediately — not silently skipped
 - [ ] A partial report is always produced when some agents complete and others block
-- [ ] Verdict is exactly COMPLETE or BLOCKED — no other verdict values used
+- [ ] Verdict is exactly COMPLETE, `COMPLETE — consistency NOT ASSESSED ([input])` or BLOCKED — no other verdict values used
 - [ ] Next Steps handoff references `/design-review`, `/localize extract`, and `/dev-story`
 
 ---
@@ -200,10 +223,11 @@ is unresolved.
   validated implicitly by Case 1. Separate edge cases are not needed for these phases as
   their failure modes follow the standard Error Recovery Protocol.
 - The "Retry with narrower scope" and "Skip this agent" resolution paths from the Error
-  Recovery Protocol are not separately tested — they follow the same `AskUserQuestion`
-  + partial-report pattern validated in Cases 2 and 5.
-- Localization concerns that are advisory (e.g., German/Finnish +30% expansion warnings)
-  vs. blocking (hardcoded formats) are distinguished in Case 4; advisory-only scenarios
-  follow the same pattern but do not change the verdict.
+  Recovery Protocol are not separately walked to completion — Cases 2, 4 and 5 check that
+  they are offered.
+- Advisory localization concerns (e.g., German/Finnish +30% expansion warnings) are not
+  given a case; Case 4 covers only a concern the localization-lead returns as BLOCKED.
 - The writer's "all lines under 120 characters" and "string keys not raw strings" checks
   in Phase 5 are covered implicitly by Case 4's localization compliance scenario.
+- The `small` active set (review_mode-dependent localization-lead and world-builder) is not
+  given its own case.