mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 04:51:46 +00:00
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:
@@ -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
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user