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/docs/director-gates/td-feasibility.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+> Gate definition. The spawning skill passes this file's path to the director agent; the AGENT reads it — the parent session should not.
+
+# TD-FEASIBILITY — Technical Feasibility Assessment
+
+Agent: `technical-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Architecture, engine risk, performance
+
+**Trigger**: After biggest technical risks are identified during scope/feasibility
+(brainstorm Phase 6, quick-design, or any early-stage concept with technical unknowns)
+
+**Context to pass**:
+- Concept's core loop description
+- Platform target
+- Engine choice (or "undecided")
+- List of identified technical risks
+
+**Prompt**:
+> "Review these technical risks for a [genre] game targeting [platform] using
+> [engine or 'undecided engine']. Flag any HIGH risk items that could invalidate
+> the concept as described, any risks that are engine-specific and should influence
+> the engine choice, and any risks that are commonly underestimated by solo
+> developers. Return VIABLE (risks are manageable), CONCERNS [list with mitigation
+> suggestions], or HIGH RISK [blockers that require concept or scope revision]."
+
+**Verdicts**: VIABLE / CONCERNS / HIGH RISK