Release 1.1.3 — long skills keep their later steps

Fix release for 1.1.2: the 14 longest skills keep their later phases
after a compaction, a question nobody answered is never taken as an
answer, settings read the same from a subfolder, the commit check works
for a project in a subfolder of a larger repository, every skill opens
with a title, and the shipped allow rules no longer approve deleting a
branch or writing files without asking. Details in CHANGELOG.md; upgrade
steps in UPGRADING.md (v1.1.2 → v1.1.3).

Refs #83
Refs #133

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185en4t76fPn7315q4c3nko

.claude/skills/retrospective/SKILL.md

@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ model: sonnet
 
 !`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow,qa.level`
 
+# Retrospective
+
 
 
 Every `AskUserQuestion` call follows `.claude/docs/automation-modes.md`
@@ -33,11 +35,10 @@ not a filled-in report.** Check first, and stop if the check fails.
 
 **A verdict of `NOT ASSESSED` is a success.** It is the correct, useful answer to
 "what does the data say?" when there is no data. The failure mode this prevents is
-specific and has been observed in practice: report templates whose verdict
-enum had no "could not run" state produced **false clean passes** — an asset audit
-returning COMPLIANT on a project with no assets and no standards, and a
-performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against a 16.67ms budget" with zero
-profiler data and no budget ever set.
+specific: a report whose verdict enum has no "could not run" state produces
+**false clean passes** — an asset audit returning COMPLIANT on a project with no
+assets and no standards, or a performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against
+a 16.67ms budget" with zero profiler data and no budget ever set.
 
 **Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.** A scan that finds no
 matches because there are no files to scan has not verified anything. Say which of
@@ -262,7 +263,11 @@ If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
 
 ## Phase 6: Next Steps
 
-Use `AskUserQuestion`:
+At `workflow: minimal` (resolved above), which has no sprints, skip this question:
+point to the retrospective file and say its action items go into the brief's build
+order.
+
+Otherwise, use `AskUserQuestion`:
 - Prompt: "Retrospective complete. The action items and velocity data are ready. Would you like to start sprint planning now with this data pre-loaded?"
 - Options:
   - `[A] Yes — open sprint planning with retro action items and velocity delta pre-populated`