mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
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>
This commit is contained in:
Donchitos
193
docs/examples/README.md
Normal file
193
docs/examples/README.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
|
||||
# Collaborative Session Examples
|
||||
|
||||
This directory contains realistic, end-to-end session transcripts showing how the Game Studio Agent Architecture works in practice. Each example demonstrates the **collaborative workflow** where agents ask questions, present options, and wait for user approval rather than autonomously generating content.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 📚 **Available Examples**
|
||||
|
||||
### [Session: Designing the Crafting System](session-design-crafting-system.md)
|
||||
**Type:** Design
|
||||
**Agent:** game-designer
|
||||
**Duration:** ~45 minutes (12 turns)
|
||||
**Complexity:** Medium
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario:**
|
||||
Solo dev needs to design a crafting system that serves Pillar 2 ("Emergent Discovery Through Experimentation"). The agent guides them through question/answer, presents 3 design options with game theory analysis, incorporates user modifications, and iteratively drafts the GDD with approval at each step.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Collaborative Moments:**
|
||||
- Agent asks 5 clarifying questions upfront
|
||||
- Presents 3 distinct options with pros/cons + MDA alignment
|
||||
- User modifies recommended option, agent incorporates immediately
|
||||
- Edge case flagged proactively ("what if non-recipe combo?")
|
||||
- Each GDD section shown for approval before moving to next
|
||||
- Explicit "May I write to [file]?" before creating file
|
||||
|
||||
**Learn:**
|
||||
- How design agents ask about goals, constraints, references
|
||||
- How to present options using game design theory (MDA, SDT, Bartle)
|
||||
- How to iterate on drafts section-by-section
|
||||
- When to delegate to specialists (systems-designer, economy-designer)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### [Session: Implementing Combat Damage Calculation](session-implement-combat-damage.md)
|
||||
**Type:** Implementation
|
||||
**Agent:** gameplay-programmer
|
||||
**Duration:** ~30 minutes (10 turns)
|
||||
**Complexity:** Low-Medium
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario:**
|
||||
User has a complete design doc and wants the damage calculation implemented. Agent reads the spec, identifies 7 ambiguities/gaps, asks clarifying questions, proposes architecture for approval, implements with rule enforcement, and proactively writes tests.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Collaborative Moments:**
|
||||
- Agent reads design doc first, identifies 7 spec ambiguities
|
||||
- Architecture proposed with code samples BEFORE implementation
|
||||
- User requests type safety, agent refines and re-proposes
|
||||
- Rules catch issues (hardcoded values), agent fixes transparently
|
||||
- Tests written proactively following verification-driven development
|
||||
- Agent offers options for next steps rather than assuming
|
||||
|
||||
**Learn:**
|
||||
- How implementation agents clarify specs before coding
|
||||
- How to propose architecture with code samples for approval
|
||||
- How rules enforce standards automatically
|
||||
- How to handle spec gaps (ask, don't assume)
|
||||
- Verification-driven development (tests prove it works)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### [Session: Scope Crisis - Strategic Decision Making](session-scope-crisis-decision.md)
|
||||
**Type:** Strategic Decision
|
||||
**Agent:** creative-director
|
||||
**Duration:** ~25 minutes (8 turns)
|
||||
**Complexity:** High
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario:**
|
||||
Solo dev faces crisis: Alpha milestone in 2 weeks, crafting system needs 3 weeks, investor demo is make-or-break. Creative director gathers context, frames the decision, presents 3 strategic options with honest trade-off analysis, makes recommendation but defers to user, then documents decision with ADR and demo script.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Collaborative Moments:**
|
||||
- Agent reads context docs before proposing solutions
|
||||
- Asks 5 questions to understand decision constraints
|
||||
- Frames decision properly (what's at stake, evaluation criteria)
|
||||
- Presents 3 options with risk analysis and historical precedent
|
||||
- Makes strong recommendation but explicitly: "this is your call"
|
||||
- Documents decision + provides demo script to support user
|
||||
|
||||
**Learn:**
|
||||
- How leadership agents frame strategic decisions
|
||||
- How to present options with trade-off analysis
|
||||
- How to use game dev precedent and theory in recommendations
|
||||
- How to document decisions (ADRs)
|
||||
- How to cascade decisions to affected departments
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🎯 **What These Examples Demonstrate**
|
||||
|
||||
All examples follow the **collaborative workflow pattern:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Question → Options → Decision → Draft → Approval
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ **Collaborative Behaviors Shown:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Agents Ask Before Assuming**
|
||||
- Design agents ask about goals, constraints, references
|
||||
- Implementation agents clarify spec ambiguities
|
||||
- Leadership agents gather full context before recommending
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Agents Present Options, Not Dictates**
|
||||
- 2-4 options with pros/cons
|
||||
- Reasoning based on theory, precedent, project pillars
|
||||
- Recommendation made, but user decides
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Agents Show Work Before Finalizing**
|
||||
- Design drafts shown section-by-section
|
||||
- Architecture proposals shown before implementation
|
||||
- Strategic analysis presented before decisions
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Agents Get Approval Before Writing Files**
|
||||
- Explicit "May I write to [file]?" before using Write/Edit tools
|
||||
- Multi-file changes list all affected files first
|
||||
- User says "Yes" before any file is created
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Agents Iterate on Feedback**
|
||||
- User modifications incorporated immediately
|
||||
- No defensiveness when user changes recommendations
|
||||
- Celebrate when user improves agent's suggestion
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 📖 **How to Use These Examples**
|
||||
|
||||
### For New Users:
|
||||
Read these examples BEFORE your first session. They show realistic expectations for how agents work:
|
||||
- Agents are consultants, not autonomous executors
|
||||
- You make all creative/strategic decisions
|
||||
- Agents provide expert guidance and options
|
||||
|
||||
### For Understanding Specific Workflows:
|
||||
- **Designing a system?** → Read session-design-crafting-system.md
|
||||
- **Implementing code?** → Read session-implement-combat-damage.md
|
||||
- **Making strategic decisions?** → Read session-scope-crisis-decision.md
|
||||
|
||||
### For Training:
|
||||
If you're teaching someone to use this system, walk through one example turn-by-turn to show:
|
||||
- What good questions look like
|
||||
- How to evaluate presented options
|
||||
- When to approve vs. request changes
|
||||
- How to maintain creative control while leveraging AI expertise
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🔍 **Common Patterns Across All Examples**
|
||||
|
||||
### Turn 1-2: **Understand Before Acting**
|
||||
- Agent reads context (design docs, specs, constraints)
|
||||
- Agent asks clarifying questions
|
||||
- No assumptions or guesses
|
||||
|
||||
### Turn 3-5: **Present Options with Reasoning**
|
||||
- 2-4 distinct approaches
|
||||
- Pros/cons for each
|
||||
- Theory/precedent supporting the analysis
|
||||
- Recommendation made, decision deferred to user
|
||||
|
||||
### Turn 6-8: **Iterate on Drafts**
|
||||
- Show work incrementally
|
||||
- Incorporate feedback immediately
|
||||
- Flag edge cases or ambiguities proactively
|
||||
|
||||
### Turn 9-10: **Approval and Completion**
|
||||
- "May I write to [file]?"
|
||||
- User: "Yes"
|
||||
- Agent writes files
|
||||
- Agent offers next steps (tests, review, integration)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🚀 **Try It Yourself**
|
||||
|
||||
After reading these examples, try this exercise:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Pick one of your game systems (combat, inventory, progression, etc.)
|
||||
2. Ask the relevant agent to design or implement it
|
||||
3. Notice if the agent:
|
||||
- ✅ Asks clarifying questions upfront
|
||||
- ✅ Presents options with reasoning
|
||||
- ✅ Shows drafts before finalizing
|
||||
- ✅ Requests approval before writing files
|
||||
|
||||
If the agent skips any of these, remind it:
|
||||
> "Please follow the collaborative protocol from docs/COLLABORATIVE-DESIGN-PRINCIPLE.md"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 📝 **Additional Resources**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Full Principle Documentation:** [docs/COLLABORATIVE-DESIGN-PRINCIPLE.md](../COLLABORATIVE-DESIGN-PRINCIPLE.md)
|
||||
- **Workflow Guide:** [docs/WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md](../WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md)
|
||||
- **Agent Roster:** [.claude/docs/agent-roster.md](../../.claude/docs/agent-roster.md)
|
||||
- **CLAUDE.md (Collaboration Protocol):** [CLAUDE.md](../../CLAUDE.md#collaboration-protocol)
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user