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/ux-design/references/5-crossref-handoff.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# /ux-design — Sections 5 and 6: Cross-Reference Check and Handoff
+
+> Part of `/ux-design`. `SKILL.md` names when to read this file; the settings it
+> resolved and the rules under its later headings still apply here.
+
+## 5. Cross-Reference Check
+
+Before marking the spec as ready for review, run these checks:
+
+**1. GDD requirement coverage**: Does every GDD UI Requirement that references
+this screen have a corresponding element in this spec? Present any gaps.
+
+**2. Pattern library alignment**: Are all interaction patterns used in this spec
+referenced by name? If a new pattern was invented during this spec session, flag
+it for addition to the pattern library:
+Use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- "This spec uses [pattern name], which isn't in the pattern library yet. What should we do?"
+- Options: "Add it to the pattern library now", "Flag it as a gap and continue", "Skip — this pattern is one-off"
+
+**3. Navigation consistency**: Do the entry/exit points in this spec match the
+navigation map in any related specs? Flag mismatches.
+
+**4. Accessibility coverage**: Does the spec address the accessibility tier
+committed to in `design/accessibility-requirements.md`? If not, flag open questions.
+
+**5. Empty states**: Does every data-dependent element have an empty state defined?
+Flag any that don't.
+
+Present the check results:
+> **Cross-Reference Check: [Screen Name]**
+> - GDD requirements: [N of M covered / all covered]
+> - New patterns to add to library: [list or "none"]
+> - Navigation mismatches: [list or "none"]
+> - Accessibility gaps: [list or "none"]
+> - Missing empty states: [list or "none"]
+
+---
+
+## 6. Handoff
+
+When all sections are approved and written:
+
+### 6a: Update Session State
+
+Update `production/session-state/active.md` with:
+- Task: [screen-name] UX spec
+- Status: Complete (or In Review)
+- File: design/ux/[filename].md
+- Sections: All written
+- Next: [suggestion]
+
+### 6b: Suggest Next Step
+
+Before presenting options, state clearly:
+
+> "This spec should be validated with `/ux-review` before it enters the
+> implementation pipeline. The Production gate (`/gate-check production`)
+> requires all key screen specs to have passed `/ux-review` at `workflow: full`
+> (recommended at `standard`)."
+
+Then use `AskUserQuestion`:
+- "Run `/ux-review [filename]` now, or do something else first?"
+  - Options:
+    - "Run `/ux-review` now — validate this spec"
+    - "Design another screen first, then review all specs together"
+    - "Update the interaction pattern library with new patterns from this spec"
+    - "Stop here for this session"
+
+If the user picks "Design another screen first", add a note: "Reminder: run
+`/ux-review` on all completed specs before running `/gate-check production`."
+
+### 6c: Cross-Link Related Specs
+
+If other UX specs link to or from this screen, note which ones should reference
+this spec. Do not edit those files without asking — just name them.
+
+---