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/6-completion-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+# /story-done — Phase 6: Present the Completion Report
+
+> 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 6: Present the Completion Report
+
+**In this file:**
+
+- The completion report template
+- Verdict definitions
+- `NOT ASSESSED` and verdict precedence
+
+Before updating any files, present the full report:
+
+```markdown
+## Story Done: [Story Name]
+**Story**: [file path]
+**Date**: [today]
+
+### Acceptance Criteria: [X/Y passing]
+- [x] [Criterion 1] — auto-verified (test file present)
+- [x] [Criterion 2] — confirmed
+- [ ] [Criterion 3] — FAILS: [reason]
+- [?] [Criterion 4] — DEFERRED: requires playtest
+
+### Test-Criterion Traceability
+| Criterion | Test | Status |
+|-----------|------|--------|
+| AC-1: [text] | [test file::test name] | COVERED |
+| AC-2: [text] | Manual confirmation | COVERED |
+| AC-3: [text] | — | UNTESTED |
+
+### Test Evidence
+**Story Type**: [Logic | Integration | Visual/Feel | UI | Config/Data | Not declared]
+**Required evidence**: [unit test file | integration test or playtest | screenshot + sign-off | screenshot of each screen touched | smoke check pass]
+**Evidence found**: [YES — `[path]` | NO — BLOCKING | NO — ADVISORY]
+
+### Deviations
+[NONE] OR:
+- BLOCKING: [description] — [GDD/ADR reference]
+- ADVISORY: [description] — user accepted / flagged for tech debt
+
+### Scope
+[All changes within stated scope] OR:
+- Extra files touched: [list] — [note whether valid or scope creep]
+
+### Verdict: COMPLETE / COMPLETE WITH NOTES / NOT ASSESSED / BLOCKED
+```
+
+**Verdict definitions:**
+- **COMPLETE**: all criteria pass, no blocking deviations
+- **COMPLETE WITH NOTES**: every criterion passes or is `DEFERRED` (Phase 3 —
+  evaluable, awaiting a playtest), with advisory deviations or deferred criteria
+  documented — list each DEFERRED criterion so it is not lost
+- **NOT ASSESSED**: one or more acceptance criteria could not be evaluated at
+  all — name which, and why
+- **BLOCKED**: failing criteria or blocking deviations must be resolved first
+
+**`NOT ASSESSED` — the story nobody could verify.** Rank: it **outranks COMPLETE
+and COMPLETE WITH NOTES** (a review that could not evaluate a criterion has not
+shown the criterion is met) and **ranks below BLOCKED** (a criterion known to
+fail is more actionable than one nobody could check, and demoting it would bury
+it). It is not a gentler BLOCKED: "this acceptance criterion fails" and "I could
+not tell whether it passes" send the reader to different fixes.
+
+**Verdict precedence — first matching rule wins**, evaluated in this order:
+**BLOCKED**, then **NOT ASSESSED**, then **COMPLETE WITH NOTES**, then
+**COMPLETE**. A run with both a failing criterion and an unassessable one is
+BLOCKED. Stating the order mechanically, rather than leaving it to be inferred
+from the rank sentence, is what keeps two reviewers from grading the same story
+differently.
+
+Emit it when any of:
+
+- An acceptance criterion **cannot be evaluated at all** — it names no observable
+  outcome, so no evidence could settle it either way.
+  > **Not the same as Phase 3's `DEFERRED`.** A criterion that is evaluable but
+  > needs a playtest is `DEFERRED — requires playtest session`, it does **not**
+  > block, and Phase 3 keeps ownership of it. This trigger is for a criterion no
+  > session could ever settle as written. If Phase 3 already marked it DEFERRED,
+  > that classification stands and this trigger does not fire.
+- A criterion the user answered **`Not tested yet`** (Phase 3) — it could be
+  checked, but nobody has. Name it and what would settle it: launch the build,
+  check it, then re-run `/story-done`.
+- QL-TEST-COVERAGE or LP-CODE-REVIEW returned **NOT ASSESSED** and the input it
+  named was not supplied.
+- The **test evidence is present but unreadable or unclassifiable** — corrupt,
+  empty, or of a type that cannot be determined.
+  > **Absent evidence is Phase 3's, not this trigger's.** Phase 3 resolves a
+  > missing file through `testing.strict`: BLOCKING types produce **BLOCKED**,
+  > ADVISORY types produce **COMPLETE WITH NOTES**. Both outrank or are already
+  > decided, so re-routing "absent" here would silently override an explicit
+  > advisory ruling. *Unreadable* is the genuinely unassessable case, and it is
+  > the only one this trigger claims.
+- **`/test-evidence-review` returned `NOT ASSESSED`** for this story — applicable
+  only when that skill was actually run against it, which this skill does not do
+  itself. It
+  propagates: that skill's whole point is that "could not check" is not
+  "checked and fine", and collapsing its unknown into a COMPLETE here would undo
+  the distinction one skill downstream. `coding-standards.md` marks Logic and
+  Integration evidence BLOCKING, so this is the path where an unverifiable story
+  would otherwise acquire a verdict saying somebody verified it.
+- A **deviation's severity cannot be determined** because the GDD or ADR it
+  would be judged against is missing.
+
+A `NOT ASSESSED` verdict takes the same Phase 7 path as BLOCKED: do not
+automatically proceed, list what could not be checked and what would make it
+checkable. Closing anyway remains the user's explicit call, and stays gated by
+Phase 7's `scope_changes` always-ask rule.
+
+If the verdict is **BLOCKED**: do not *automatically* proceed to Phase 7. List
+what must be fixed and offer to help fix the blocking items. This is the
+default path, not an absolute stop — the user may still explicitly ask to
+close the story anyway despite the blockers. That request is what routes to
+Phase 7's menu below, and Phase 7's own `scope_changes` always-ask rule is
+exactly what stands between that request and a silent close in autonomous
+mode. Do not treat "do not automatically proceed" as "Phase 7 is now
+unreachable" — it is reachable, on request, and gated when reached.
+
+---