Release 1.1.0 — one config file, and a process weight you choose

`project.yaml` at the repo root is now the single source of truth for a
project's configuration, replacing `production/stage.txt`,
`production/review-mode.txt` and `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` (all
three still read as a fallback; nothing is force-deleted).

**`modes.rigor` — one question instead of six.** `minimal`, `standard` or
`full` fronts six knobs: `modes.workflow`, `docs.density`, `qa.level`,
`modes.story_granularity`, `modes.review_mode` and `team.size`. It defaults to
`minimal`, which is a change from 1.0's behaviour: the heavier tier was
measured costing several times more to reach working code without producing a
better result, and returning nothing when a fresh developer inherited the
project. Pin `modes.rigor: standard` to keep 1.0's process level.

Also in this release:

- `/settings` to view or change any setting, and `project.local.yaml` for
  per-developer preferences that should not be committed.
- `system_overrides` to hold one system to a higher standard than the rest of
  the project, and `testing.strict` to set per test type whether missing
  evidence blocks a story or warns.
- A story that changes anything the player sees is not closed until the game
  has been launched, observed, and a screenshot retained in
  `production/qa/evidence/`. A parse check is not a run. This holds at every
  rigor level, including `minimal`, where automated tests are waived but the
  look is not.
- The code root is engine-specific and enforced as such: Godot `src/`, Unity
  `Assets/`, Unreal `Source/<Module>/`. Two of the three will not build a
  project laid out any other way.
- Migration tooling for existing projects: `.claude/scripts/migrate-v1-config.sh`
  converts a 1.0 layout, non-destructively by default, with a report to review
  before `--finalize` deletes anything.
- Ask-before-write holds regardless of personal automation settings.

Upgrading from 1.0 or earlier: see UPGRADING.md. Full list of changes:
CHANGELOG.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016xvzG3i7pWQg4LjyDwWMXd

.claude/agents/community-manager.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: community-manager
-description: "The community manager owns player-facing communication: patch notes, social media posts, community updates, player feedback collection, bug report triage from players, and crisis communication. They translate between development team and player community."
-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Task
+description: "Player-facing communication — patch notes, social posts, community updates, feedback collection, player bug triage, crisis communication."
+tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit
 model: haiku
 maxTurns: 10
 disallowedTools: Bash
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ Before writing any code:
    - Explicitly ask: "May I write this to [filepath(s)]?"
    - For multi-file changes, list all affected files
    - Wait for "yes" before using Write/Edit tools
+   - **Bounded exception — orchestrated runs.** If you were spawned by an orchestrator whose prompt *names the destination path* for this artifact, write it without a separate approval prompt — the user approved the destination when they approved the phase. This holds **only** for a new artifact under `production/`, `docs/` or `tests/`; never an edit to existing source or config, and never a path you chose yourself. If you were invoked directly, or no path was named for you, ask as above.
 
 6. **Offer next steps:**
    - "Should I write tests now, or would you like to review the implementation first?"
@@ -124,6 +125,13 @@ Before writing any code:
 - Acknowledge popular requests publicly (even if not planned)
 - Close the loop when feedback leads to changes ("you asked, we delivered")
 - Never promise specific features or dates without producer approval
+- **Never state that a fix, feature, or content exists without evidence you have
+  seen.** Player-facing copy is the one output that cannot be walked back. Before
+  claiming a bug is fixed, verify the fix exists in the code or in a QA record;
+  before listing content, verify it exists. If you cannot verify a claim, say so
+  and ask — do not write it, and do not soften it into a vaguer version of the
+  same claim. "Players are upset about it" is a reason to respond, never evidence
+  that it was fixed. An unverifiable claim is omitted, not hedged.
 - Use "we're looking into it" only when genuinely investigating
 
 ## Community Health