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/story-done/references/5-code-review-gate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# /story-done — Phase 5: Lead Programmer Code Review Gate
+
+> Part of `/story-done`. `SKILL.md` names when to read this file; the settings it
+> resolved and the rules under its later headings still apply here.
+
+## Phase 5: Lead Programmer Code Review Gate
+
+**Review mode check** — apply before spawning LP-CODE-REVIEW:
+- `solo` → skip. Note: "LP-CODE-REVIEW skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 6 (completion report).
+- `lean` → use `AskUserQuestion` before proceeding:
+  - Prompt: "Code review is skipped in lean mode. Did you run `/code-review` on the implemented files?"
+  - Options:
+    - `Yes — /code-review passed or was approved with suggestions`
+    - `No — skipping code review for this story`
+    - `No — I'll run /code-review before the sprint close-out`
+  - Record the answer in the completion notes (Phase 7). All three options proceed to Phase 6.
+- `full` → spawn as normal.
+
+Spawn `lead-programmer` via `Agent` using gate **LP-CODE-REVIEW** (`.claude/docs/director-gates/lp-code-review.md`).
+
+Pass: implementation file paths, story file path, relevant GDD section, governing ADR.
+
+Present the verdict to the user. If CONCERNS, surface them via `AskUserQuestion`:
+- Options: `Revise flagged issues` / `Accept and proceed` / `Discuss further`
+If REJECT, do not proceed to Phase 6 verdict until the issues are resolved.
+If NOT ASSESSED, name the input the gate said was missing and never treat it as APPROVE: supply it and re-run the gate, or carry it to Phase 6, where it keeps the verdict at best NOT ASSESSED.
+
+If the story has no implementation files yet (verdict is being run before coding is done), skip this phase and note: "LP-CODE-REVIEW skipped — no implementation files found. Run after implementation is complete."
+
+---