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/skills/team-combat/SKILL.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: team-combat
-description: "Orchestrate the combat team: coordinates game-designer, gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to design, implement, and validate a combat feature end-to-end."
+description: "Orchestrate the combat team — game-designer, gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer, qa-tester — design through implement and validate."
 argument-hint: "[combat feature description] [--review full|lean|solo]"
 user-invocable: true
-allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Task, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Agent, AskUserQuestion, TaskCreate, TaskGet, TaskList, TaskUpdate
 model: sonnet
 ---
 **Argument check:** If no combat feature description is provided, output:
@@ -15,20 +15,58 @@ When this skill is invoked with a valid argument, orchestrate the combat team th
 **Decision Points:** At each phase transition, use `AskUserQuestion` to present
 the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
 full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
-The user must approve before moving to the next phase.
+In `collaborative` mode, the user must approve before moving to the next phase.
+In `guided` mode the pipeline advances automatically unless a phase is BLOCKED;
+in `autonomous` mode it runs end to end, recording each phase outcome via
+`log_decision`. Decisions in `automation_always_ask` categories
+(`is_always_ask_category` helper) always prompt regardless of mode. See
+`.claude/docs/automation-modes.md`.
 
-## Phase 0: Resolve Review Mode
+## Phase 0: Resolve Config
 
-1. If `--review [mode]` was passed as an argument, use that mode.
-2. Else read `production/review-mode.txt` — use whatever is written there.
-3. Else default to `lean`.
+!`source "${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR:-.}/.claude/hooks/yaml-helper.sh" 2>/dev/null && resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,team.size`
 
-Modes:
+Resolved above — use as-is; `--review` overrides `review_mode`. No block →
+defaults in `.claude/docs/config-resolution.md`.
+
+`review_mode` sets gate depth:
 - `full` — spawn all director and lead gates as described
 - `lean` — skip director gates unless they are PHASE-GATE type (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE)
 - `solo` — skip all director gate spawning entirely; run the skill without any agent gates
 
-Store the resolved mode for use in all subsequent phases.
+`automation` drives the Decision Points note above. See the Decision Points note above and
+`.claude/docs/automation-modes.md` for how each mode changes pipeline behavior.
+
+**`team.size`**: which agents are active (orthogonal to review_mode gate-depth and workflow docs).
+- **`individual`** (default): `gameplay-programmer` runs the pipeline; escalate `ai-programmer` only if the feature flags AI work. Other Team Composition agents are consulted via the gameplay-programmer, not spawned separately.
+- **`small`**: the full Team Composition pipeline below, as documented.
+- **`studio`**: full pipeline + engine sub-specialists + an adversarial review pass.
+Directors (CD/TD/PR) still spawn at phase gates regardless of size; a non-core agent needed at `individual` routes through the nearest active core agent with an informational note. **"Phase gate" means any phase that ends in an `AskUserQuestion` decision point before the pipeline advances** — not every phase. Apply the test literally: if the phase below has no decision point, it is not a gate, and an agent restricted to "phase gates only" is not spawned for it. This active-set scoping applies throughout the pipeline below: any phase that names an agent outside the active set routes through the nearest core agent rather than spawning it.
+
+**Announce the active set before Phase 1 — never let the collapse be silent.**
+Before spawning anything, state in one line which agents this run will actually
+spawn, and which the pipeline below names but will **not** spawn at the resolved
+`team.size`. For example:
+
+> `Active set (team.size: <resolved>): <the agents listed for that size above>.`
+> `Not spawned this run: <every other agent this pipeline names> — consulted`
+> `through <nearest active core agent>. Raise team.size (or modes.rigor) to widen.`
+
+Fill it from the `team.size` list directly above and the agents this file's own
+pipeline names — not from an example. Both sets differ per orchestrator.
+
+The pipeline below reads as a multi-agent fan-out and at the shipped default it
+is one or two agents — `team-release` names eight and runs one, `team-narrative`
+names six across five phases and runs `writer` alone. **The collapse is correct**:
+`team.size` is rigor-fronted and the narrow default is the token lever, measured
+at roughly 10x. What was wrong is that nothing said so, so a reader could not
+distinguish a correctly-collapsed run from a broken pipeline, and the per-agent
+"routes through the nearest core agent with an informational note" rule above
+fires at routing time and never states the shape of the run as a whole.
+
+This is the same rule as the skipped-check reporting elsewhere in this file: **a constraint that is enforced but never surfaced is
+indistinguishable, to the person reading the output, from one that was never
+enforced.**
 
 ## Team Composition
 - **game-designer** — Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge cases
@@ -36,12 +74,12 @@ Store the resolved mode for use in all subsequent phases.
 - **ai-programmer** — Implement NPC/enemy AI behavior for the feature
 - **technical-artist** — Create VFX, shader effects, and visual feedback
 - **sound-designer** — Define audio events, impact sounds, and ambient combat audio
-- **engine specialist** (primary) — Validate architecture and implementation patterns are idiomatic for the engine (read from `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` Engine Specialists section)
+- **engine specialist** (primary) — Validate architecture and implementation patterns are idiomatic for the engine (the primary specialist is `<engine>-specialist` from `engine.name` — Godot→`godot-specialist`, Unity→`unity-specialist`, Unreal→`unreal-specialist`; fall back to the Primary line of `## Engine Specialists` in `technical-preferences.md`)
 - **qa-tester** — Write test cases and validate the implementation
 
 ## How to Delegate
 
-Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
+Use the `Agent` tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
 - `subagent_type: game-designer` — Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge cases
 - `subagent_type: gameplay-programmer` — Implement the core gameplay code
 - `subagent_type: ai-programmer` — Implement NPC/enemy AI behavior
@@ -50,7 +88,36 @@ Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
 - `subagent_type: [primary engine specialist]` — Engine idiom validation for architecture and implementation
 - `subagent_type: qa-tester` — Write test cases and validate implementation
 
-Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (design doc path, relevant code files, constraints). Launch independent agents in parallel where the pipeline allows it (e.g., Phase 3 agents can run simultaneously).
+**Brief each agent — do not dump context.** Read the shared inputs **once** and pass a distilled brief inline: the lines each agent actually needs, never a file path for a document you have already read (an agent handed a path re-reads the whole file). Pass a path only for a document you have not read and only that agent needs.
+
+**End every agent prompt with a return contract:** "Write your full output to `[path]` — that named path is your write authorisation under the bounded exception below, so write it without a separate approval prompt. Return **only** (1) the path written, (2) a ≤5-bullet summary of decisions, (3) any BLOCKED/CONCERNS items, one line each. Do not restate the documents you read." Without it, an agent returns everything it read back into this session.
+
+**Substitute a real path for `[path]`.** Every phase that produces an artifact
+names one; most are fixed by the skill that already reads them:
+
+| Phase / agent | Writes to | Destination fixed by |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 game-designer | `design/gdd/[feature].md` | the GDD convention |
+| 2 gameplay-programmer | `docs/architecture/[feature]-sketch.md` | see note below |
+| 2 engine specialist | `docs/architecture/[feature]-engine-notes.md` | see note below |
+| 5 qa-tester (test cases) | `production/qa/test-cases/[feature]-cases.md` | `/team-qa` Phase 4 |
+| 5 qa-tester (bugs) | `production/qa/bugs/BUG-[NNN]-[slug].md` | `/team-qa` Phase 5 |
+
+Phase 6 is a spoken status report, not an artifact — no path, and none needed.
+
+> **Every phase above names a concrete destination, deliberately.** The Error
+> Recovery Protocol below says "a named artifact that is not on disk is a failed
+> phase" — a check that cannot run when no path was named.
+>
+> **The two `docs/architecture/` entries are a judgement call, not a convention.**
+> That directory holds ADRs (`adr-NNNN-*.md`); a sketch is a precursor to one, not
+> one itself, and **nothing in the repo reads either file**. Say so when
+> reporting, so the sketch is understood as a record rather than an input to a
+> later gate.
+
+> **Why this does not violate the Collaboration Protocol.** `CLAUDE.md` requires an agent to ask "May I write this to [filepath]?" before Write/Edit. A subagent spawned here writes **without** asking, and that is a deliberate, bounded exception rather than an oversight — the same call already made for `consistency-check` appending to `active.md`. The exception holds only when all three are true: (1) the path is one **you** named in the prompt, so the user approved the destination when they approved the phase; (2) it is a new artifact under `production/`, `docs/` or `tests/`, never an edit to existing source or config; (3) the phase that produced it is itself gated by an `AskUserQuestion` before the pipeline advances. Outside those three, the agent must ask. **Do not "fix" this by asking per subagent** — a prompt per agent per phase makes an orchestrator unusable, which is why the exception exists.
+
+Launch independent agents in parallel where the pipeline allows it (e.g., Phase 3 agents can run simultaneously).
 
 ## Pipeline
 
@@ -79,7 +146,11 @@ Use `AskUserQuestion`:
   - `[B] Revise the architecture first — I'll describe what needs to change`
   - `[C] Stop here — I'll continue later`
 
-Only spawn implementation agents if user selects [A].
+Only spawn implementation agents if user selects [A]. (In `guided`/`autonomous`
+mode this architecture gate is a normal phase transition — proceed to
+implementation unless the architecture sketch came back BLOCKED, recording the
+decision via `log_decision` in autonomous mode. The gate is not a release-
+critical or irreversible decision, so it follows the standard pipeline rule.)
 
 ### Phase 3: Implementation (parallel where possible)
 Delegate in parallel:
@@ -107,15 +178,17 @@ Delegate to **qa-tester**:
 
 ## Error Recovery Protocol
 
-If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
+**First, verify the artifact.** If the return contract named a path, check the
+path exists before treating the phase as done — **a named artifact that is not
+on disk is a failed phase, however fluent the response reads.** An agent can
+burn a full phase and return a plausible preamble having written nothing, which
+is neither BLOCKED nor an error nor "cannot complete", so the trigger below
+never fires. Resume it naming the unmet contract; the context is
+usually still there.
 
-1. **Surface immediately**: Report "[AgentName]: BLOCKED — [reason]" to the user before continuing to dependent phases
-2. **Assess dependencies**: Check whether the blocked agent's output is required by subsequent phases. If yes, do not proceed past that dependency point without user input.
-3. **Offer options** via AskUserQuestion with choices:
-   - Skip this agent and note the gap in the final report
-   - Retry with narrower scope
-   - Stop here and resolve the blocker first
-4. **Always produce a partial report** — output whatever was completed. Never discard work because one agent blocked.
+If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete: **surface it
+immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a
+partial report.** Full procedure: `.claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md`.
 
 Common blockers:
 - Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
@@ -126,8 +199,12 @@ Common blockers:
 ## File Write Protocol
 
 All file writes (design documents, implementation files, test cases) are
-delegated to sub-agents spawned via Task. Each sub-agent enforces the
-"May I write to [path]?" protocol. This orchestrator does not write files directly.
+delegated to sub-agents spawned via `Agent`. Those writes follow the **bounded
+exception** documented above under "Why this does not violate the Collaboration
+Protocol" — the path is one you named, the artifact is new under `production/`,
+`docs/` or `tests/`, and the phase is gated by an `AskUserQuestion`. A sub-agent
+does **not** prompt per write inside those bounds; outside them it must ask.
+This orchestrator does not write files directly.
 
 ## Output