merge: origin/main v1.1.2.0 (mode-posture energy fix) into fix-checkpoints

Main shipped /plan-ceo-review + /office-hours mode-posture fixes as
v1.1.2.0 — same version slot this branch used. Bumped ours to
v1.1.3.0.

Resolved conflicts:
- VERSION / package.json: 1.1.2.0 → 1.1.3.0
- CHANGELOG.md: our entry moved up to [1.1.3.0], main's mode-posture
  entry kept at [1.1.2.0]. Sequence: 1.1.3.0 → 1.1.2.0 → 1.1.1.0 →
  1.1.0.0 → 1.0.0.0
- Migration renamed v1.1.2.0.sh → v1.1.3.0.sh (version string inside
  + test path reference + hardening test describe block all updated)

Also expanded our CHANGELOG entry to reflect the testing work that
landed over the debugging loop: 8 live-fire E2E tests, 21 free-tier
hardening tests, collision sentinel, env: param on runSkillTest, and
GSTACK_HOME storage-path fix.

No code overlap with main's changes (main edited preamble writing-style
rules + plan-ceo-review and office-hours templates; ours edited
context-save / context-restore / migration / tests). SKILL.md files
regenerated via bun run gen:skill-docs --host all. Golden fixtures
updated.

bun test: 0 failures after renaming v1.1.2.0 → v1.1.3.0 in the hardening
test describe block and MIGRATION constant.

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md

@@ -411,9 +411,15 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
 These rules apply to every AskUserQuestion, every response you write to the user, and every review finding. They compose with the AskUserQuestion Format section above: Format = *how* a question is structured; Writing Style = *the prose quality of the content inside it*.
 
 1. **Jargon gets a one-sentence gloss on first use per skill invocation.** Even if the user's own prompt already contained the term — users often paste jargon from someone else's plan. Gloss unconditionally on first use. No cross-invocation memory: a new skill fire is a new first-use opportunity. Example: "race condition (two things happen at the same time and step on each other)".
-2. **Frame questions in outcome terms, not implementation terms.** Bad: "Is this endpoint idempotent?" Good: "If someone double-clicks the button, is it OK for the action to run twice?" Ask the question the user would actually want to answer.
-3. **Short sentences. Concrete nouns. Active voice.** Standard advice from any good writing guide. Prefer "the cache stores the result for 60s" over "results will have been cached for a period of 60s."
-4. **Close every decision with user impact.** Connect the technical call back to who's affected. "If we skip this, your users will see a 3-second spinner on every page load." Make the user's user real.
+2. **Frame questions in outcome terms, not implementation terms.** Ask the question the user would actually want to answer. Outcome framing covers three families — match the framing to the mode:
+   - **Pain reduction** (default for diagnostic / HOLD SCOPE / rigor review): "If someone double-clicks the button, is it OK for the action to run twice?" (instead of "Is this endpoint idempotent?")
+   - **Upside / delight** (for expansion / builder / vision contexts): "When the workflow finishes, does the user see the result instantly, or are they still refreshing a dashboard?" (instead of "Should we add webhook notifications?")
+   - **Interrogative pressure** (for forcing-question / founder-challenge contexts): "Can you name the actual person whose career gets better if this ships and whose career gets worse if it doesn't?" (instead of "Who's the target user?")
+3. **Short sentences. Concrete nouns. Active voice.** Standard advice from any good writing guide. Prefer "the cache stores the result for 60s" over "results will have been cached for a period of 60s." *Exception:* stacked, multi-part questions are a legitimate forcing device — "Title? Gets them promoted? Gets them fired? Keeps them up at night?" is longer than one short sentence, and it should be, because the pressure IS in the stacking. Don't collapse a stack into a single neutral ask when the skill's posture is forcing.
+4. **Close every decision with user impact.** Connect the technical call back to who's affected. Make the user's user real. Impact has three shapes — again, match the mode:
+   - **Pain avoided:** "If we skip this, your users will see a 3-second spinner on every page load."
+   - **Capability unlocked:** "If we ship this, users get instant feedback the moment a workflow finishes — no tabs to refresh, no polling."
+   - **Consequence named** (for forcing questions): "If you can't name the person whose career this helps, you don't know who you're building for — and 'users' isn't an answer."
 5. **User-turn override.** If the user's current message says "be terse" / "no explanations" / "brutally honest, just the answer" / similar, skip this entire Writing Style block for your next response, regardless of config. User's in-turn request wins.
 6. **Glossary boundary is the curated list.** Terms below get glossed. Terms not on the list are assumed plain-English enough. If you see a term that genuinely needs glossing but isn't listed, note it (once) in your response so it can be added via PR.
 
@@ -1103,6 +1109,18 @@ Rules:
 - If only one approach exists, explain concretely why alternatives were eliminated.
 - Do NOT proceed to mode selection (0F) without user approval of the chosen approach.
 
+### 0D-prelude. Expansion Framing (shared by EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION)
+
+Every expansion proposal you generate in SCOPE EXPANSION or SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode follows this framing pattern:
+
+FLAT (avoid): "Add real-time notifications. Users would see workflow results faster — latency drops from ~30s polling to <500ms push. Effort: ~1 hour CC."
+
+EXPANSIVE (aim for): "Imagine the moment a workflow finishes — the user sees the result instantly, no tab-switching, no polling, no 'did it actually work?' anxiety. Real-time feedback turns a tool they check into a tool that talks to them. Concrete shape: WebSocket channel + optimistic UI + desktop notification fallback. Effort: human ~2 days / CC ~1 hour. Makes the product feel 10x more alive."
+
+Both are outcome-framed. Only one makes the user feel the cathedral. Lead with the felt experience, close with concrete effort and impact.
+
+**For SELECTIVE EXPANSION:** neutral recommendation posture ≠ flat prose. Present vivid options, then let the user decide. Do not over-sell — "Makes the product feel 10x more alive" is vivid; "This would 10x your revenue" is over-sell. Evocative, not promotional.
+
 ### 0D. Mode-Specific Analysis
 **For SCOPE EXPANSION** — run all three, then the opt-in ceremony:
 1. 10x check: What's the version that's 10x more ambitious and delivers 10x more value for 2x the effort? Describe it concretely.

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -246,6 +246,18 @@ Rules:
 - If only one approach exists, explain concretely why alternatives were eliminated.
 - Do NOT proceed to mode selection (0F) without user approval of the chosen approach.
 
+### 0D-prelude. Expansion Framing (shared by EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION)
+
+Every expansion proposal you generate in SCOPE EXPANSION or SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode follows this framing pattern:
+
+FLAT (avoid): "Add real-time notifications. Users would see workflow results faster — latency drops from ~30s polling to <500ms push. Effort: ~1 hour CC."
+
+EXPANSIVE (aim for): "Imagine the moment a workflow finishes — the user sees the result instantly, no tab-switching, no polling, no 'did it actually work?' anxiety. Real-time feedback turns a tool they check into a tool that talks to them. Concrete shape: WebSocket channel + optimistic UI + desktop notification fallback. Effort: human ~2 days / CC ~1 hour. Makes the product feel 10x more alive."
+
+Both are outcome-framed. Only one makes the user feel the cathedral. Lead with the felt experience, close with concrete effort and impact.
+
+**For SELECTIVE EXPANSION:** neutral recommendation posture ≠ flat prose. Present vivid options, then let the user decide. Do not over-sell — "Makes the product feel 10x more alive" is vivid; "This would 10x your revenue" is over-sell. Evocative, not promotional.
+
 ### 0D. Mode-Specific Analysis
 **For SCOPE EXPANSION** — run all three, then the opt-in ceremony:
 1. 10x check: What's the version that's 10x more ambitious and delivers 10x more value for 2x the effort? Describe it concretely.