Game Studio Agent Architecture — complete setup (Phases 1-7)

48 coordinated Claude Code subagents for indie game development:
- 3 leadership agents (creative-director, technical-director, producer)
- 10 department leads (game-designer, lead-programmer, art-director, etc.)
- 23 specialist agents (gameplay, engine, AI, networking, UI, tools, etc.)
- 12 engine-specific agents (Godot, Unity, Unreal with sub-specialists)

Infrastructure:
- 34 skills (slash commands) for workflows, reviews, and team orchestration
- 8 hooks for commit validation, asset checks, session management
- 11 path-scoped rules enforcing domain-specific standards
- 28 templates for design docs, reports, and collaborative protocols

Key features:
- User-driven collaboration protocol (Question → Options → Decision → Draft → Approval)
- Engine version awareness with knowledge-gap detection (Godot 4.6 pinned)
- Phase gate system for development milestone validation
- CLAUDE.md kept under 80 lines with extracted doc imports

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

.claude/skills/design-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+name: design-review
+description: "Reviews a game design document for completeness, internal consistency, implementability, and adherence to project design standards. Run this before handing a design document to programmers."
+argument-hint: "[path-to-design-doc]"
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
+---
+
+When this skill is invoked:
+
+1. **Read the target design document** in full.
+
+2. **Read the master CLAUDE.md** to understand project context and standards.
+
+3. **Read related design documents** referenced or implied by the target doc
+   (check `design/gdd/` for related systems).
+
+4. **Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist**:
+   - [ ] Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary)
+   - [ ] Has Player Fantasy section (intended feeling)
+   - [ ] Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics)
+   - [ ] Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables)
+   - [ ] Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled)
+   - [ ] Has Dependencies section (other systems listed)
+   - [ ] Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified)
+   - [ ] Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions)
+
+5. **Check for internal consistency**:
+   - Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?
+   - Do edge cases contradict the main rules?
+   - Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)?
+
+6. **Check for implementability**:
+   - Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing?
+   - Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing?
+   - Are performance implications considered?
+
+7. **Check for cross-system consistency**:
+   - Does this conflict with any existing mechanic?
+   - Does this create unintended interactions with other systems?
+   - Is this consistent with the game's established tone and pillars?
+
+8. **Output the review** in this format:
+
+```
+## Design Review: [Document Title]
+
+### Completeness: [X/8 sections present]
+[List missing sections]
+
+### Consistency Issues
+[List any internal or cross-system contradictions]
+
+### Implementability Concerns
+[List any vague or unimplementable sections]
+
+### Balance Concerns
+[List any obvious balance risks]
+
+### Recommendations
+[Prioritized list of improvements]
+
+### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]
+```