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
2026-10-16 10:17:06 +00:00 · 2026-10-08 17:52:48 +11:00
parent b21fa0f7f2
commit be8993bbc5
231 changed files with 12000 additions and 10527 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+# /review-all-gdds — Phase 5: Output the Review Report
+
+> Part of `/review-all-gdds`. `SKILL.md` names when to read this file; the settings it
+> resolved and the rules under its later headings still apply here.
+
+## Phase 5: Output the Review Report
+
+**In this file:**
+
+- The report template
+- `NOT ASSESSED` and where it ranks
+
+```
+## Cross-GDD Review Report
+Date: [date]
+GDDs Reviewed: [N] of [M] present
+Not read: [each GDD that could not be read or is present but empty, by file name — or "none"]
+Systems Covered: [list]
+
+---
+
+### Consistency Issues
+
+#### Blocking (must resolve before architecture begins)
+🔴 [Issue title]
+[What GDDs are involved, what the contradiction is, what needs to change]
+
+#### Warnings (should resolve, but won't block)
+⚠️  [Issue title]
+[What GDDs are involved, what the concern is]
+
+---
+
+### Game Design Issues
+
+#### Blocking
+🔴 [Issue title]
+[What the problem is, which GDDs are involved, design recommendation]
+
+#### Warnings
+⚠️  [Issue title]
+[What the concern is, which GDDs are affected, recommendation]
+
+---
+
+### Cross-System Scenario Issues
+
+Scenarios walked: [N]
+[List scenario names]
+
+#### Blockers
+🔴 [Scenario name] — [Systems involved]
+[Step where failure occurs, nature of the failure mode, what must be resolved]
+
+#### Warnings
+⚠️  [Scenario name] — [Systems involved]
+[What the unintended outcome is, recommendation]
+
+#### Info
+ℹ️  [Scenario name] — [Systems involved]
+[Minor ordering ambiguity or note]
+
+---
+
+### GDDs Flagged for Revision
+
+| GDD | Reason | Type | Priority |
+|-----|--------|------|----------|
+| [system-a].md | Rule contradiction with [system-b].md | Consistency | Blocking |
+| [system-b].md | Rule contradiction with [system-a].md | Consistency | Blocking |
+| [system-c].md | Stale reference to nonexistent mechanic | Consistency | Blocking |
+| [system-d].md | No pillar alignment | Design Theory | Warning |
+
+---
+
+### Verdict: [PASS / NOT ASSESSED / CONCERNS / FAIL]
+
+PASS: No blocking issues and no warnings.
+NOT ASSESSED: One or more review phases could not run — named below.
+CONCERNS: Warnings present that should be resolved, but nothing blocking.
+FAIL: One or more blocking issues must be resolved before architecture begins.
+
+### If NOT ASSESSED — what could not be reviewed, and why:
+[Name each phase that did not run and the input it needed, and each GDD that could not be read or is present but empty, by file name]
+
+### If FAIL — required actions before re-running:
+[Specific list of what must change in which GDD]
+```
+
+**`NOT ASSESSED` — a cross-review is only as wide as what it could read.** Rank:
+**above PASS**, **below CONCERNS and FAIL**. This skill's whole value is
+comparing systems *against each other*, so it is unusually easy for it to look
+thorough while covering a fraction of the surface. Emit it when any of:
+
+- **Fewer than two GDDs were readable.** Contradiction-hunting across one document
+  is not a cross-review; a clean result there means only that nothing was
+  compared. This is the single most important trigger in this skill.
+- **A whole review phase did not run** — consistency, design theory, economy,
+  pillar drift. A parallel phase that returned nothing has to be distinguished
+  from one that returned no findings; if a spawned agent produced no report, that
+  phase is NOT ASSESSED, not clean — an agent can return a fluent sentence,
+  write nothing, and consume a phase.
+- **The design pillars are undefined**, so pillar-drift has no reference to drift
+  from — the same shape as an accessibility gate with no committed tier.
+- **A GDD is present but empty** (headings only, or all placeholders), **or
+  could not be read**. Present is not the same as reviewable, and a stub
+  contradicts nothing.
+
+Report the covered set explicitly either way: `GDDs reviewed: [N] of [M] present`
+(`[M]` counts the system GDDs present — the Phase 1c set, not `game-concept.md`,
+`game-pillars.md`, `systems-index.md` or an earlier `gdd-cross-review-*.md`),
+and the `Not read:` line naming every GDD that could not be read or is present but empty, whatever the
+verdict — a FAIL found in the GDDs that were read does not make the unread ones
+reviewed.
+A cross-review that silently skipped half the systems is indistinguishable from
+one that found them consistent.
+
+---