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-ui.md

@@ -7,10 +7,15 @@ Coordinates ux-designer, ui-programmer, art-director, the engine UI specialist,
 and accessibility-specialist through five structured phases: Context Gathering +
 UX Spec (Phase 1a/1b) → UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) → Visual Design (Phase 2) →
 Implementation (Phase 3) → Review in parallel (Phase 4) → Polish (Phase 5).
-Uses `AskUserQuestion` at each phase transition. Delegates all file writes to
-sub-agents and sub-skills (`/ux-design`, `ui-programmer`). Produces a summary report
-with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
-`/team-polish`.
+Phase 0 resolves `review_mode`, `automation` and `team.size` and the skill announces
+the active set before any spawn — the default `individual` spawns ui-programmer +
+ux-designer, `small` adds accessibility-specialist + art-director, `studio` adds the
+engine UI specialist and an adversarial Phase 4 review. Phase 1a reports each of its five inputs as present or ABSENT,
+and a missing `design/accessibility-requirements.md` is carried forward as
+`Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED`. Uses `AskUserQuestion` at each phase transition.
+Delegates all file writes to sub-agents and sub-skills (`/ux-design`,
+`ui-programmer`). Produces a summary report with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and
+handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`, `/team-polish`.
 
 ---
 
@@ -19,13 +24,17 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 - [ ] Has required frontmatter fields: `name`, `description`, `argument-hint`, `user-invocable`, `allowed-tools`
 - [ ] Has ≥2 phase headings (Phase 1a through Phase 5 are all present)
 - [ ] Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
-- [ ] Contains "May I write" or "File Write Protocol" — writes delegated to sub-agents and sub-skills, orchestrator does not write files directly
+- [ ] File Write Protocol: sub-agents write under the bounded exception (named path, new artifact under `production/`, `docs/` or `tests/`, gated phase) and ask outside it; sub-skills (`/ux-design`) ask before writing; the orchestrator does not write files directly; implementation files (code, shaders, audio, assets) are outside it — each agent lists the files it will create or change, and the skill asks once for the set before any is written
+- [ ] Names a destination per agent under `production/ui/[feature-name]/`: `visual-design.md` (art-director, Phase 2), `engine-notes.md` (engine UI specialist), `review-[agent].md` (each Phase 4 reviewer, one file 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 `/ux-review`, `/code-review`, `/team-polish`)
-- [ ] Error Recovery Protocol section is present with all four recovery steps
-- [ ] Uses `AskUserQuestion` at phase transitions for user approval before proceeding
+- [ ] Error Recovery Protocol section is present: verify a named artifact is on disk, surface BLOCKED immediately, always produce a partial report, full procedure (surface → assess → options → partial report) in `.claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md`
+- [ ] Uses `AskUserQuestion` at phase transitions for user approval before proceeding (`collaborative` mode)
+- [ ] Phase 0 resolves `team.size`, and the skill requires a one-line active-set announcement before any spawn
 - [ ] Phase 4 is explicitly marked as parallel (ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist)
-- [ ] UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) is defined as a blocking gate — skill must not proceed to Phase 2 without APPROVED verdict
+- [ ] UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) is defined as a blocking gate — skill must not proceed to Phase 2 without APPROVED verdict, except by an explicit user override of NEEDS REVISION or NOT ASSESSED, which the final report records
 - [ ] Team Composition lists all five roles (ux-designer, ui-programmer, art-director, engine UI specialist, accessibility-specialist)
+- [ ] Engine UI specialist is read from `specialists.ui` in `project.yaml` (falling back to `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md`), and `specialists.ui: null` is treated as unset
 - [ ] References the interaction pattern library (`design/ux/interaction-patterns.md`) — ui-programmer must use existing patterns
 - [ ] Phase 1a reads `design/accessibility-requirements.md` before design begins
 
@@ -36,30 +45,35 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 ### Case 1: Happy Path — Full pipeline from UX spec through polish succeeds
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `review_mode: full`, `team.size: studio`, `automation: collaborative`
 - `design/gdd/game-concept.md` exists with platform targets and intended audience
 - `design/player-journey.md` exists
 - `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` exists with relevant patterns
-- `design/accessibility-requirements.md` exists with committed tier (e.g., Enhanced)
-- Engine UI specialist configured in `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md`
+- `design/accessibility-requirements.md` exists with committed tier (e.g., Standard)
+- `engine.name` in `project.yaml` is Godot and `specialists.ui` is `godot-specialist`
 
 **Input:** `/team-ui inventory screen`
 
 **Expected behavior:**
-1. Phase 1a — orchestrator reads game-concept.md, player-journey.md, relevant GDD UI sections, interaction-patterns.md, accessibility-requirements.md; summarizes a brief for the ux-designer
-2. Phase 1b — `/ux-design inventory-screen` invoked (or ux-designer spawned directly); produces `design/ux/inventory-screen.md` using `ux-spec.md` template; `AskUserQuestion` confirms spec before review
-3. Phase 1c — `/ux-review design/ux/inventory-screen.md` invoked; returns APPROVED; gate passed, proceed to Phase 2
-4. Phase 2 — art-director spawned; reviews full UX spec (not only wireframes); applies visual treatment; verifies color contrast; produces visual design spec with asset manifest; `AskUserQuestion` confirms before Phase 3
-5. Phase 3 — engine UI specialist spawned first (read from technical-preferences.md); produces implementation notes for ui-programmer; ui-programmer spawned with UX spec + visual spec + engine notes; implementation produced; interaction-patterns.md updated if new patterns introduced
-6. Phase 4 — ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist spawned in parallel; all three return results before Phase 5
-7. Phase 5 — review feedback addressed; animations verified skippable; UI sounds confirmed through audio event system; interaction-patterns.md final check; verdict: COMPLETE
-8. Summary report: UX spec APPROVED, visual design COMPLETE, implementation COMPLETE, accessibility COMPLIANT, all input methods supported, pattern library updated, verdict: COMPLETE
+1. Before any spawn, one line announces the active set for `team.size: studio`
+2. Phase 1a — orchestrator reads game-concept.md, player-journey.md, relevant GDD UI sections, interaction-patterns.md, accessibility-requirements.md; reports each input as present or ABSENT; summarizes a brief for the ux-designer
+3. Phase 1b — `/ux-design inventory-screen` invoked (or ux-designer spawned directly); produces `design/ux/inventory-screen.md` using `ux-spec.md` template; `AskUserQuestion` confirms spec before review
+4. Phase 1c — `/ux-review design/ux/inventory-screen.md` invoked; returns APPROVED; gate passed, proceed to Phase 2
+5. Phase 2 — art-director spawned; reviews full UX spec (not only wireframes); applies visual treatment; verifies color contrast; produces visual design spec with asset manifest; `AskUserQuestion` confirms before Phase 3
+6. Phase 3 — `godot-specialist` (from `specialists.ui`) spawned first; produces implementation notes for ui-programmer; ui-programmer spawned with UX spec + visual spec + engine notes; implementation produced; interaction-patterns.md updated if new patterns introduced
+7. Phase 4 — ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist spawned in parallel, each told to find where the implementation fails its spec rather than confirm it matches (the `studio` adversarial pass); all three return results before Phase 5
+8. Phase 5 — review feedback addressed; animations verified skippable; UI sounds confirmed through audio event system; interaction-patterns.md final check
+9. Summary report: UX spec status, UX review verdict, visual design status, implementation status, accessibility compliance, input method support, pattern library status; verdict: COMPLETE
 
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] Phase 1a reads all five sources before briefing ux-designer
+- [ ] Active-set line naming `team.size: studio` appears before the first agent is spawned
+- [ ] Phase 1a reads all five sources and lists each as present or ABSENT before briefing ux-designer
 - [ ] UX Review Gate checked before Phase 2 — Phase 2 does NOT begin until APPROVED
 - [ ] Art-director in Phase 2 reviews full spec, not just wireframe images
-- [ ] Engine UI specialist spawned before ui-programmer in Phase 3
+- [ ] Engine UI specialist is taken from `specialists.ui` and spawned before ui-programmer in Phase 3
+- [ ] ui-programmer lists the files it will create or change, and writes none before the one ask for that set is answered yes
 - [ ] Phase 4 agents launched simultaneously (ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist)
+- [ ] At `team.size: studio`, Phase 4's prompts are adversarial and the summary report says the adversarial pass ran
 - [ ] All file writes delegated to sub-agents and sub-skills
 - [ ] Verdict COMPLETE in final summary report
 - [ ] Next steps include `/ux-review`, `/code-review`, `/team-polish`
@@ -69,6 +83,7 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 ### Case 2: UX Review Gate — Spec fails review; skill halts before implementation
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `automation: collaborative` (any `team.size` — ux-designer is active at every size)
 - `design/ux/inventory-screen.md` produced by Phase 1b
 - `/ux-review` returns verdict NEEDS REVISION with specific concerns flagged (e.g., gamepad navigation flow incomplete, contrast ratio below minimum)
 
@@ -89,10 +104,20 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 - [ ] Phase 2 does NOT begin while UX review verdict is NEEDS REVISION
 - [ ] `AskUserQuestion` presents the specific flagged concerns before offering options
 - [ ] User must make a conscious choice to override — skill does not assume override
-- [ ] If user accepts risk, NEEDS REVISION concern is documented in the final report
+- [ ] If user accepts risk, the final report records the override: the NEEDS REVISION verdict, the concerns left open, and that the user chose to proceed
 - [ ] Revision-and-re-review loop is offered (not just a one-shot failure)
 - [ ] Skill does NOT discard the produced UX spec on review failure
 
+**Variant B — `/ux-review` returns NOT ASSESSED:**
+- Fixture as above, except `design/accessibility-requirements.md` is absent and the other review dimensions find no gaps, so `/ux-review` returns NOT ASSESSED (accessibility: no committed tier)
+- Expected: Phase 2 does not begin; `AskUserQuestion` names the unassessed dimension and its missing input (`/ux-design accessibility`), with options to produce that input and re-run the review, or to proceed consciously; if the user proceeds, the final report records the NOT ASSESSED override and Phase 4 still reports `Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED — no committed tier (design/accessibility-requirements.md absent)`
+
+**Assertions (variant B):**
+- [ ] Phase 2 does NOT begin on NOT ASSESSED without an explicit user decision — it blocks like NEEDS REVISION
+- [ ] The prompt names the dimension `/ux-review` could not assess and the input that would make it checkable, not spec revisions
+- [ ] The skill does not re-run `/ux-review` against the same missing input and treat the result as new
+- [ ] An override is recorded in the final report with the NOT ASSESSED verdict and the unassessed dimension
+
 ---
 
 ### Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown
@@ -105,12 +130,12 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 **Expected behavior:**
 1. Skill detects no argument provided
 2. Outputs usage message explaining the required argument (UI feature description)
-3. Provides an example invocation: `/team-ui [UI feature description]`
+3. Shows the invocation format `/team-ui [UI feature description] [--review full|lean|solo]` with examples (`inventory screen`, `main menu`, `combat HUD`)
 4. Skill exits without spawning any subagents or reading any project files
 
 **Assertions:**
 - [ ] Skill does NOT spawn any subagents when no argument is given
-- [ ] Usage message includes the argument-hint format from frontmatter
+- [ ] Usage message shows the full argument-hint: `/team-ui [UI feature description] [--review full|lean|solo]`
 - [ ] At least one example of a valid invocation is shown
 - [ ] No UX spec files or GDDs read before failing
 - [ ] Verdict is NOT shown (pipeline never starts)
@@ -120,25 +145,26 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 ### Case 4: Accessibility Parallel Review — Phase 4 runs three streams simultaneously
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `review_mode: full`, `team.size: small`, `automation: collaborative`
 - `design/ux/inventory-screen.md` exists (APPROVED)
 - Visual design spec complete
 - Implementation complete
-- `design/accessibility-requirements.md` committed tier: Enhanced
+- `design/accessibility-requirements.md` committed tier: Standard
 
 **Input:** `/team-ui inventory screen` (resuming from Phase 3 complete)
 
 **Expected behavior:**
 1. Phase 4 begins after implementation is confirmed complete
-2. Three Task calls issued simultaneously: ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist
+2. Three Agent calls issued simultaneously: ux-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist
 3. Each stream operates independently:
    - ux-designer: verifies implementation matches wireframes, tests keyboard-only and gamepad-only navigation, checks accessibility features function
    - art-director: verifies visual consistency with art bible at minimum and maximum supported resolutions
-   - accessibility-specialist: audits against the Enhanced accessibility tier in `design/accessibility-requirements.md`; any violation flagged as a blocker
+   - accessibility-specialist: audits against the Standard accessibility tier in `design/accessibility-requirements.md`; any violation flagged as a blocker
 4. Skill waits for all three results before proceeding to Phase 5
 5. `AskUserQuestion` presents all three review results before Phase 5 begins
 
 **Assertions:**
-- [ ] All three Task calls issued before any result is awaited (parallel, not sequential)
+- [ ] All three Agent calls issued before any result is awaited (parallel, not sequential)
 - [ ] Phase 5 does NOT begin until all three Phase 4 agents have returned
 - [ ] Accessibility-specialist explicitly reads `design/accessibility-requirements.md` for the committed tier
 - [ ] Accessibility violations flagged as BLOCKING (not merely advisory)
@@ -150,6 +176,7 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 ### Case 5: Missing Interaction Pattern Library — Skill notes the gap rather than inventing patterns
 
 **Fixture:**
+- Resolved config block: `automation: collaborative` (any `team.size`)
 - `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` does NOT exist
 - All other required files present
 
@@ -160,7 +187,7 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 2. Skill surfaces the gap: "interaction-patterns.md does not exist — no existing patterns to reuse"
 3. `AskUserQuestion` presented with options:
    - (a) Run `/ux-design patterns` first to establish the pattern library, then continue
-   - (b) Proceed without the pattern library — ux-designer will document new patterns as they are created
+   - (b) Proceed without the pattern library — ui-programmer will treat all patterns created as new and add each to a new `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` at completion
 4. Skill does NOT invent or assume patterns from other sources
 5. If user chooses (b): ui-programmer is explicitly instructed to treat all patterns created as new and to add each to a new `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` at completion
 6. Final report notes that interaction-patterns.md was created (or is still absent if user skipped)
@@ -177,8 +204,12 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 
 ## Protocol Compliance
 
-- [ ] `AskUserQuestion` used at each phase transition — user approves before pipeline advances
-- [ ] UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) is blocking — Phase 2 cannot begin without APPROVED or explicit user override
+- [ ] At the default `team.size: individual`, the run opens with an `Active set (team.size: individual): ui-programmer + ux-designer` line and a `Not spawned this run:` line naming art-director, accessibility-specialist and the engine UI specialist — before any agent is spawned
+- [ ] In `collaborative` mode, `AskUserQuestion` used at each phase transition — user approves before pipeline advances
+- [ ] UX Review Gate (Phase 1c) is blocking — Phase 2 cannot begin without APPROVED, or an explicit user override of a NEEDS REVISION or NOT ASSESSED verdict that the final report records
+- [ ] When `design/accessibility-requirements.md` is absent, Phase 4 reports `Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED — no committed tier (design/accessibility-requirements.md absent)` and never reports the accessibility gate as passed
+- [ ] When no engine is configured, the engine UI specialist is skipped and the run output records `Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED — no engine configured`
+- [ ] When the accessibility gate or the engine validation was NOT ASSESSED, the verdict names each (`COMPLETE — [accessibility | engine validation] NOT ASSESSED ([reason])`) — never a plain COMPLETE
 - [ ] All file writes delegated to sub-agents and sub-skills — orchestrator does not call Write or Edit directly
 - [ ] Phase 4 agents launched in parallel per skill spec
 - [ ] Error Recovery Protocol followed: surface → assess → offer options → partial report
@@ -193,9 +224,11 @@ with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to `/ux-review`, `/code-review`,
 - The HUD-specific path (`/ux-design hud` + `hud-design.md` template + visual budget check in Phase 5)
   is not separately tested here; it shares the same phase structure but uses different templates.
 - The "Update in place" path for interaction-patterns.md (new pattern added during implementation)
-  is exercised implicitly in Case 1 Step 5 — a dedicated fixture with a known new pattern would
+  is exercised implicitly in Case 1 Phase 3 — a dedicated fixture with a known new pattern would
   strengthen coverage.
-- Engine UI specialist unavailable (no engine configured) — skill spec states "skip if no engine
-  configured"; this path is asserted in Case 1 but not given a dedicated fixture.
-- The NEEDS REVISION acceptance-risk override (Case 2 option b) requires the override to be
-  explicitly documented in the report; this is asserted but not further tested for downstream effects.
+- Engine UI specialist unavailable (no engine configured) is asserted in Protocol Compliance but
+  not given a dedicated fixture; a missing accessibility-requirements file is exercised at the
+  Phase 1c gate by Case 2 variant B.
+- The NEEDS REVISION and NOT ASSESSED overrides (Case 2, both variants) must be recorded in
+  the final report; this is asserted but not further tested for downstream effects.
+- A MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict from `/ux-review` is not given a case.