Release v1.0.0 — concept-prototype/vertical-slice split, workflow restructure, polish (#50)

* Add /vertical-slice skill, prototype overhaul, and workflow integration

- Add /vertical-slice skill for pre-production validation (Phase 4 gate)
- Overhaul /prototype skill with two-mode design: concept prototype (Phase 1)
  vs vertical slice (Phase 4), with clearer differentiation and higher standards for VS
- Update prototyper agent to own both prototype and vertical-slice workflows
- Add prototype-report.md and vertical-slice-report.md output templates
- Update WORKFLOW-GUIDE, quick-start, skills-reference, agent-coordination-map,
  and skill-flow-diagrams to fully integrate both skills into the 7-phase pipeline
- Remove orphaned empty quick-prototype/ directory

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* sync v1 counts + polish

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Add entity inventory flow, relax vertical-slice gate, improve UX authoring prompts

- /asset-spec: new Phase 0b entity & screen inventory when no argument and no
  existing inventory — reads GDDs/art-bible, proposes categorized list, writes
  design/assets/entity-inventory.md collaboratively
- /asset-spec: entity/character target falls back to inline user description
  when no source doc exists, rather than failing
- /gate-check: vertical slice changed from blocking to CONCERNS-only when
  absent; built-but-broken slice still fails; adds entity inventory as gate artifact
- /ux-design: convert inline approval prompts to AskUserQuestion for structured
  option capture at key authoring decision points
- workflow-catalog.yaml: entity-inventory step added to pre-production; UX spec
  min_count raised to 3; vertical-slice and prototype marked required: false with
  updated descriptions
- .gitignore: exclude marrow/ eval tooling directory

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Add missing AskUserQuestion widgets to 7 skills

Audit found 11 decision points across 7 skills where structured option
prompts were missing — using plain text, auto-selection, or no gate at all.

Skills patched:
- create-epics: per-epic approval + producer CONCERNS verdict
- sprint-plan: producer CONCERNS verdict with scope/timeline options
- milestone-review: AT RISK / OFF TRACK producer verdicts require acknowledgement
- retrospective: existing-retro handling converted from plain text [A]/[B]
- quick-design: classification confirmation + draft approve/revise/redirect
- tech-debt add mode: category (6 options) + effort (S/M/L/XL) structured capture
- regression-suite: no-arg mode selection instead of silent auto-detect
- hotfix: severity confirmation gate before workflow begins

Also added AskUserQuestion to allowed-tools headers for retrospective,
quick-design, tech-debt, regression-suite, and hotfix.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Prep v1 stable: fix WORKFLOW-GUIDE counts, stale agent names, and skill model fields

- WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md: correct agent count (48→49), skill count (66/68→73),
  add 6 missing skills to Appendix B, fix Creative category count (2→4),
  replace 3 non-existent agent names with correct ue-*/unity-* specialists,
  add missing godot-csharp/gdextension specialists to hierarchy,
  fix production/stories/ paths → production/epics/
- coordination-rules.md: replace "not yet used" with opt-in env var note
- quick-start.md: rename duplicate "Validate the concept" label → "Prototype the mechanic"
- skill-flow-diagrams.md: remove duplicate legacy UX pipeline section
- All 62 skills missing model: field now have explicit model: sonnet

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: comprehensive skill audit — consistency, UX, and flow gaps

Two-pass audit fixing ~35 bugs across 41 files.

Pre-production flow:
- Brainstorm next-steps split into Path A (design-first) and Path B
  (prototype-first) — eliminates "prototype after architecture" confusion
- /architecture-review added to pre-production flow in brainstorm and
  create-architecture handoffs
- gate-check traceability check corrected to requirements-traceability.md
- dev-story TR registry error now points to /architecture-review (not /create-epics)
- start now writes production/stage.txt on first onboarding

AskUserQuestion gaps filled:
- balance-check, code-review, hotfix, day-one-patch, consistency-check
  all gain closing widgets and/or missing allowed-tools declarations
- hotfix git branch creation now requires user confirmation
- sprint-plan review-mode setup moved to Phase 0 (before gates run)
- team-combat gains architecture→implementation approval gate
- design-review APPROVED path consolidated from 3 widgets to 1 multiSelect

All 9 team-* skills:
- Phase 0 review-mode resolution added (solo/lean/full now respected)
- team-audio output path fixed (design/gdd/ → design/audio/)
- team-level final doc compilation delegated to level-designer subagent
- team-narrative localization-lead added to composition list
- team-qa sprint path fixed (flat files, not directories)
- team-release NO-GO override captures written justification
- team-live-ops Cancel verdict now explicitly BLOCKED

Other fixes:
- Art bible path standardized to design/art/art-bible.md (3 wrong refs)
- AD-PHASE-GATE added to lean-mode skip list in director-gates.md
- design-system duplicate 5d heading fixed; skeleton decline path added;
  mandatory agent spawns now respect review mode
- story-readiness acceptance criteria thresholds now type-aware
- create-stories gains multi-ADR and no-ADR handling guidance
- consistency-check creates docs/consistency-failures.md on first run
- retrospective frontmatter bash injection replaced with explicit Bash call
- smoke-check ls -t gains PowerShell fallback
- Conventional Commits format documented in coding-standards.md
- gate-check: ADR acceptance gate, QA plan check, chain-of-verification
  tool-action requirement all added

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: expose --review flag in argument-hints for all team-* skills

All 9 team-* skills already implement Phase 0 review-mode resolution
internally (full/lean/solo), but none advertised [--review full|lean|solo]
in their argument-hint. Users had no way to discover the per-run override.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: add SECURITY.md with coordinated disclosure policy

Defines scope, reporting process (GitHub private vulnerability reporting),
contributor security guidelines for hooks/skills/agents, and 90-day
coordinated disclosure timeline.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: add CONTRIBUTING.md with framework contribution guidelines

Covers what PRs are welcome, skill/hook/agent technical requirements,
the collaborative principle, testing expectations, commit format,
and platform compatibility requirements.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: add v1.0.0-beta → v1.0 upgrade section to UPGRADING.md

Documents the 17 commits since the beta tag: new /vertical-slice gate,
entity inventory flow in /map-systems, AskUserQuestion widgets across
7 skills, --review flag exposure on team-* skills, bug fixes
(#21, #36, #42, #43, #45), and the new CONTRIBUTING.md and SECURITY.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Donchitos
2026-05-13 20:15:08 +10:00
committed by GitHub
parent 7ad8ab31c9
commit 984023ddac
97 changed files with 2883 additions and 710 deletions

View File

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ description: "Guided, section-by-section authoring of the master architecture do
argument-hint: "[focus-area: full | layers | data-flow | api-boundaries | adr-audit] [--review full|lean|solo]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Bash, AskUserQuestion, Task
model: sonnet
agent: technical-director
---
@@ -117,8 +118,12 @@ Post-Cutoff Versions: [list]
- [GDD system name] → [domain] → [risk level]
```
Ask: "This inventory identifies [N] systems in HIGH RISK engine domains. Shall I
continue building the architecture with these warnings flagged throughout?"
Use `AskUserQuestion`:
- Prompt: "One or more engine domains are HIGH RISK — the LLM's knowledge may be unreliable for these areas. Architectural recommendations in these domains should be cross-referenced with the engine docs before being acted on. How would you like to proceed?"
- Options:
- `[A] Proceed — flag HIGH RISK domains throughout the output`
- `[B] Let me check the engine reference first — pause here`
- `[C] Show me which domains are HIGH RISK and why`
---
@@ -286,7 +291,11 @@ but don't yet. Group by priority:
Once all sections are approved, write the complete document to
`docs/architecture/architecture.md`.
Ask: "May I write the master architecture document to `docs/architecture/architecture.md`?"
Display a one-paragraph summary of what the document will contain (layers, modules, data flows, ADR gaps). Then use `AskUserQuestion`:
- "All sections approved. May I write the master architecture document?"
- [A] Yes — write to `docs/architecture/architecture.md` now
- [B] Show me the full draft inline first, then ask again
- [C] Not yet — I have more changes to discuss
The document structure:
@@ -363,18 +372,68 @@ Update the Document Status section:
- Lead Programmer Feasibility: FEASIBLE / CONCERNS ACCEPTED / REVISED
```
Ask: "May I update the Document Status section in `docs/architecture/architecture.md` with the sign-off?"
Show the proposed Document Status block inline, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
- "May I update the Document Status section with the sign-off results?"
- [A] Yes — apply to `docs/architecture/architecture.md`
- [B] Not yet — I want to revisit the concerns first
---
## Phase 8: Handoff
After writing the document, provide a clear handoff:
**Step 1 — Update session state**: Write a summary to `production/session-state/active.md` covering: artifact written, TD/LP sign-off verdicts, any blockers, required ADRs remaining, and next step.
1. **Run these ADRs next** (from Phase 6, prioritised): list the top 3
2. **Gate check**: "The master architecture document is complete. Run `/gate-check
pre-production` when all required ADRs are also written."
3. **Update session state**: Write a summary to `production/session-state/active.md`
**Step 2 — Output the handoff** using exactly this template (no freeform prose, no rephrasing of section titles):
---
## Architecture Complete
`docs/architecture/architecture.md` v1.0 — [TD verdict: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONCERNS / CONCERNS]. [One sentence on what the architecture covers.]
---
## Run These ADRs Next
**1. `/architecture-decision "[Title]"` → ADR-[XXXX]**
[One sentence: what it defines and what it unblocks.]
**2. `/architecture-decision "[Title]"` → ADR-[XXXX]**
[One sentence.]
**3. `/architecture-decision "[Title]"` → ADR-[XXXX]**
[One sentence.]
List top 3 from Phase 6 in priority order. If fewer than 3 remain, list only what's outstanding.
---
## Gate-Check Readiness
> **Required before `/gate-check [stage]`:**
> - [ ] Accept ADRs: [list Proposed ADR IDs that must be Accepted]
> - [ ] Write ADRs: [list ADR IDs that must still be written]
> - [ ] Run `/test-setup` — scaffolds `tests/unit/`, `tests/integration/`, CI workflow, and an example test file
> - [ ] Run `/ux-design` — creates `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` and `design/accessibility-requirements.md`
>
> Run `/gate-check [stage]` when all boxes are checked.
If nothing is blocking, write instead:
> No blockers — run `/gate-check [stage]` now.
---
## Open Questions to Watch
| ID | Summary | Priority | Resolution Path |
|----|---------|----------|-----------------|
| QQ-XX | [short description] | High / Medium / Low | [ADR or system that resolves it] |
Omit this section entirely if there are no open QQs.
---
(End of handoff. Do not add trailing commentary after the closing rule.)
---
@@ -385,9 +444,13 @@ This skill follows the collaborative design principle at every phase:
1. **Load context silently** — do not narrate file reads
2. **Present findings** — show the knowledge gap inventory and layer proposals
3. **Ask before deciding** — present options for each architectural choice
4. **Get approval before writing** — each phase section is written only after
user approves the content
5. **Incremental writing** — write each approved section immediately; do not
4. **Draft before approval**show the content inline before asking to write it.
Never ask approval for a section the user has not yet seen.
5. **Use `AskUserQuestion` for write approvals** — plain text "May I?" is not
sufficient. Use the structured tool with labeled options [A]/[B]/[C] (write now /
show full draft first / not yet). For multi-file changesets, list every file
and what changes, then ask once grouped — not separate plain-text asks per file.
6. **Incremental writing** — write each approved section immediately; do not
accumulate everything and write at the end. This survives session crashes.
Never make a binding architectural decision without user input. If the user is
@@ -398,5 +461,8 @@ unsure, present 2-4 options with pros/cons before asking them to decide.
## Recommended Next Steps
- Run `/architecture-decision [title]` for each required ADR listed in Phase 6 — Foundation layer ADRs first
- Run `/architecture-review` — bootstraps the Requirements Traceability Matrix and TR registry from the ADRs just written. Required before the Pre-Production gate.
- Run `/test-setup` to scaffold `tests/unit/`, `tests/integration/`, CI workflow, and an example test (required for gate-check)
- Run `/ux-design` to initialize `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` and `design/accessibility-requirements.md` (required for gate-check)
- Run `/create-control-manifest` once the required ADRs are written to produce the layer rules manifest
- Run `/gate-check pre-production` when all required ADRs are written and the architecture is signed off
- Run `/gate-check pre-production` when all required ADRs, `/test-setup`, and `/ux-design` are complete