mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 01:37:05 +00:00
Release 1.1.2 — the default path works end to end
Fix release for 1.1.1: the minimal path end to end, engine commands that run on Godot, Unity and Unreal, hook warnings you can see, and verdicts that say when they could not check. Details in CHANGELOG.md; upgrade steps in UPGRADING.md (v1.1.1 → v1.1.2). Fixes #67 Fixes #131 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuJn2FdynEybfL5KC697nJ
This commit is contained in:
Donchitos
co-authored by
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
parent
7ed2c3e9c4
commit
b21fa0f7f2
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# AD-ART-BIBLE — Art Bible Sign-Off
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: Sonnet | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: session (inherit) | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After the art bible is drafted (`/art-bible`), before asset production begins
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: Sonnet | Domain: Visual identity, art bible,
|
||||
- Art bible path (`design/art/art-bible.md`)
|
||||
- Game pillars and core fantasy
|
||||
- Platform and performance constraints (`platform.*` and `performance.*` from `project.yaml`, falling back to `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md`)
|
||||
- Visual identity anchor chosen during brainstorm (from `design/gdd/game-concept.md`)
|
||||
- Visual identity anchor chosen during brainstorm (from `design/gdd/game-concept.md`; if there is no `design/gdd/game-concept.md`, pass the "Art & audio direction" line of `design/game-brief.md` instead)
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt**:
|
||||
> "Review this art bible for completeness and internal consistency. Does the color
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL — Visual Identity Anchor
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: Sonnet | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: session (inherit) | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After game pillars are locked (brainstorm Phase 4), in parallel with CD-PILLARS
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -22,4 +22,4 @@ Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: Sonnet | Domain: Visual identity, art bible,
|
||||
> primary design pillar. Name each direction. Recommend which best serves the stated
|
||||
> pillars and explain why."
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdicts**: CONCEPTS (multiple valid options — user selects) / STRONG (one direction clearly dominant) / CONCERNS (pillars don't provide enough direction to differentiate visual identity yet)
|
||||
**Verdicts**: CONCEPTS (multiple valid options — user selects) / STRONG (one direction clearly dominant) / CONCERNS (pillars don't provide enough direction to differentiate visual identity yet — name each pillar that gives none, and which of the four elements above it leaves open)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,25 +2,30 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# AD-PHASE-GATE — Visual Readiness at Phase Transition
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: Sonnet | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: session (inherit) | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: Always at `/gate-check` — spawn in parallel with CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, and PR-PHASE-GATE
|
||||
**Trigger**: At `/gate-check` when `modes.workflow` is `full` — the panel narrows by workflow, and only the full panel includes art-director; spawn in parallel with CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, and PR-PHASE-GATE
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Target phase name
|
||||
- Target phase name and the resolved `workflow` tier
|
||||
- The target gate's required and recommended artifacts at the resolved tier (from `/gate-check`'s loaded gate file)
|
||||
- List of all art/visual artifacts present (file paths)
|
||||
- Visual identity anchor from `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (if present)
|
||||
- Visual identity anchor from `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (if present; if there is no `design/gdd/game-concept.md`, the "Art & audio direction" line of `design/game-brief.md`)
|
||||
- Art bible path if it exists (`design/art/art-bible.md`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt**:
|
||||
> "Review the current project state for [target phase] gate readiness from a visual
|
||||
> direction perspective. Is the visual identity established and documented at the
|
||||
> level this phase requires? Are the right visual artifacts in place? Would visual
|
||||
> teams be able to begin their work without visual direction gaps that cause costly
|
||||
> rework later? Are there visual decisions that are being deferred past their latest
|
||||
> responsible moment? Return READY, CONCERNS [specific visual direction gaps that
|
||||
> could cause production rework], or NOT READY [visual blockers that must exist
|
||||
> before this phase can succeed — specify what artifact is missing and why it
|
||||
> matters at this stage]."
|
||||
> direction perspective, judged against what this gate requires at this tier (the
|
||||
> required-artifacts list you were given). Is the visual identity established and
|
||||
> documented at the level this phase requires? Are the visual artifacts this phase
|
||||
> requires in place? Would visual teams be able to begin their work without
|
||||
> visual direction gaps that cause costly rework later? Are there visual
|
||||
> decisions that are being deferred past their latest responsible moment?
|
||||
> A required artifact passed as "none" is a finding; one passed as "not expected
|
||||
> before [phase]" or "not required at `workflow: [tier]`" is not a finding.
|
||||
> Return READY, CONCERNS [specific visual direction gaps that could cause
|
||||
> production rework], or NOT READY [visual blockers that must exist before this
|
||||
> phase can succeed — specify what artifact is missing and why it matters at
|
||||
> this stage]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdicts**: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# AD-VISUAL — Art Director Visual Consistency Review
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: Sonnet (Tier 2 lead — invoked when a domain specialist's feasibility sign-off is needed)
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: session (inherit)
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After art direction decisions are made, when new asset types are
|
||||
introduced, or when a tech art decision affects visual style
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,12 +4,12 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `creative-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Vision, pillars, player experience
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After a system GDD is authored (design-system, quick-design, or any
|
||||
workflow that produces a GDD)
|
||||
**Trigger**: After a system GDD is authored (design-system, or any workflow that
|
||||
produces a GDD)
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- GDD file path
|
||||
- Game pillars (from `design/gdd/game-concept.md` or `design/gdd/game-pillars.md`)
|
||||
- Game pillars (from `design/gdd/game-concept.md` or `design/gdd/game-pillars.md`; if there is neither, `design/game-brief.md` has no pillars — pass its pitch and "what they feel" line)
|
||||
- MDA aesthetics target for this game
|
||||
- System's stated Player Fantasy section
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `creative-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Vision, pillars, player experience
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After narrative GDDs, lore documents, dialogue specs, or world-building
|
||||
documents are authored (team-narrative, design-system for story systems, writer
|
||||
deliverables)
|
||||
**Trigger**: Invoked directly, after narrative GDDs, lore documents, dialogue specs
|
||||
or world-building documents are authored — no skill spawns it; `/team-narrative`
|
||||
runs its own review, ND-CONSISTENCY
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Document file path(s)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,18 +4,24 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `creative-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Vision, pillars, player experience
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: Always at `/gate-check` — spawn in parallel with TD-PHASE-GATE and PR-PHASE-GATE
|
||||
**Trigger**: At `/gate-check` when `modes.workflow` is `full` — the panel narrows by workflow, and only the full panel includes creative-director; spawn in parallel with TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE and AD-PHASE-GATE
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Target phase name
|
||||
- Target phase name and the resolved `workflow` tier
|
||||
- The target gate's required and recommended artifacts at the resolved tier (from `/gate-check`'s loaded gate file)
|
||||
- List of all artifacts present (file paths)
|
||||
- Game pillars and core fantasy
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt**:
|
||||
> "Review the current project state for [target phase] gate readiness from a
|
||||
> creative direction perspective. Are the game pillars faithfully represented in
|
||||
> all design artifacts? Does the current state preserve the core fantasy? Are there
|
||||
> any design decisions across GDDs or architecture that compromise the intended
|
||||
> player experience? Return READY, CONCERNS [list], or NOT READY [blockers]."
|
||||
> creative direction perspective, judged against what this gate requires at this
|
||||
> tier (the required-artifacts list you were given). Are the game pillars
|
||||
> faithfully represented in the design artifacts this phase requires? Does the
|
||||
> current state preserve the core fantasy? Do any design decisions in the GDDs,
|
||||
> architecture or build that exist so far compromise the intended player
|
||||
> experience?
|
||||
> A required artifact passed as "none" is a finding; one passed as "not expected
|
||||
> before [phase]" or "not required at `workflow: [tier]`" is not a finding.
|
||||
> Return READY, CONCERNS [list], or NOT READY [blockers]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdicts**: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@ Agent: `creative-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Vision, pillars, player
|
||||
any session that produces player feedback
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Playtest report file path
|
||||
- Playtest report — its file path, or its content inline when the calling skill
|
||||
reviews before saving (`/playtest-report` does)
|
||||
- Game pillars and core fantasy statement
|
||||
- The specific hypothesis being tested
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ complete system set before GDD authoring begins
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Systems index path (`design/gdd/systems-index.md`)
|
||||
- Game pillars and core fantasy (from `design/gdd/game-concept.md`)
|
||||
- Game pillars and core fantasy (from `design/gdd/game-concept.md`; if there is no `design/gdd/game-concept.md`, the pitch and "what they feel" line of `design/game-brief.md`, which has no pillars)
|
||||
- Priority tier assignments (MVP / Vertical Slice / Alpha / Full Vision)
|
||||
- Any high-risk or bottleneck systems identified in the dependency map
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# LP-CODE-REVIEW — Lead Programmer Code Review
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `lead-programmer` | Model tier: Sonnet (Tier 2 lead — invoked when a domain specialist's feasibility sign-off is needed)
|
||||
Agent: `lead-programmer` | Model tier: Sonnet
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After a dev story is implemented (`/dev-story`, `/story-done`), or
|
||||
as part of `/code-review`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# ND-CONSISTENCY — Narrative Director Consistency Check
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `narrative-director` | Model tier: Sonnet (Tier 2 lead — invoked when a domain specialist's feasibility sign-off is needed)
|
||||
Agent: `narrative-director` | Model tier: session (inherit)
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After writer deliverables (dialogue, lore, item descriptions) are
|
||||
authored, or when a design decision has narrative implications
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -9,8 +9,9 @@ broken out — validates the epic structure is producible before `/create-storie
|
||||
is invoked
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Epic definition file paths (all epics just created)
|
||||
- Epic index path (`production/epics/index.md`)
|
||||
- The epic structure for the layer, inline — every epic's scope summary and
|
||||
governing-ADR count. `/create-epics` runs this gate *before* writing any epic
|
||||
file, so there are no paths yet.
|
||||
- Milestone timeline and target dates
|
||||
- Team capacity (solo / small team / size)
|
||||
- Layer being epiced (Foundation / Core / Feature / etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `producer` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Scope, timeline, dependencies, production risk
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: At milestone review (`/milestone-review`), at mid-sprint retrospectives,
|
||||
or when a scope change is proposed that affects the milestone
|
||||
**Trigger**: At milestone review (`/milestone-review`), or when a scope change is
|
||||
proposed that affects the milestone
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Milestone definition and target date
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,19 +4,27 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `producer` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Scope, timeline, dependencies, production risk
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: Always at `/gate-check` — spawn in parallel with CD-PHASE-GATE and TD-PHASE-GATE
|
||||
**Trigger**: At every `/gate-check` director panel — producer is on the panel at every `modes.workflow`; spawn in parallel with the rest of it (alone at `minimal`, with TD-PHASE-GATE at `standard`, with TD-PHASE-GATE, CD-PHASE-GATE and AD-PHASE-GATE at `full`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Target phase name
|
||||
- Sprint and milestone artifacts present
|
||||
- Team size and capacity
|
||||
- Target phase name and the resolved `workflow` tier
|
||||
- The target gate's required and recommended artifacts at the resolved tier (from `/gate-check`'s loaded gate file)
|
||||
- Sprint and milestone artifacts present — at `minimal`, the Build order in `design/game-brief.md` is the plan (that tier has no sprint plan)
|
||||
- Team size (`team.size`) and sprint capacity (from the current sprint plan, if one exists)
|
||||
- Current blocked story count
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt**:
|
||||
> "Review the current project state for [target phase] gate readiness from a
|
||||
> production perspective. Is the scope realistic for the stated timeline and team
|
||||
> size? Are dependencies properly ordered so the team can actually execute in
|
||||
> sequence? Are there milestone or sprint risks that could derail the phase within
|
||||
> the first two sprints? Return READY, CONCERNS [list], or NOT READY [blockers]."
|
||||
> production perspective, judged against what this gate requires at this tier
|
||||
> (the required-artifacts list you were given). Is the scope realistic for the
|
||||
> stated timeline and team size? Is the work of [target phase] planned to the
|
||||
> depth this gate requires — from the Production gate on, a sprint plan at
|
||||
> `standard`/`full` and the brief's Build order at `minimal`; before it, no
|
||||
> sprint plan is expected — and are its dependencies ordered so the team can
|
||||
> execute it in sequence? What milestone or schedule risks could derail the start
|
||||
> of [target phase] (its first two sprints, where the tier plans in sprints)?
|
||||
> A required artifact passed as "none" is a finding; one passed as "not expected
|
||||
> before [phase]" or "not required at `workflow: [tier]`" is not a finding.
|
||||
> Return READY, CONCERNS [list], or NOT READY [blockers]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdicts**: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `producer` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Scope, timeline, dependencies, production risk
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After scope tiers are defined (brainstorm Phase 6, quick-design, or
|
||||
any workflow that produces an MVP definition and timeline estimate)
|
||||
**Trigger**: After scope tiers are defined (brainstorm Phase 6, map-systems Phase
|
||||
4, or any workflow that produces an MVP definition and timeline estimate)
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Full vision scope description
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,13 +2,14 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# QL-STORY-READY — QA Lead Story Readiness Check
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `qa-lead` | Model tier: Sonnet (Tier 2 lead — invoked when a domain specialist's feasibility sign-off is needed)
|
||||
Agent: `qa-lead` | Model tier: session (inherit)
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: Before a story is accepted into a sprint — invoked by `/create-stories`,
|
||||
`/story-readiness`, and `/sprint-plan` during story selection
|
||||
**Trigger**: Before a story is accepted into a sprint — invoked by `/create-stories`
|
||||
and `/story-readiness`
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Story file path
|
||||
- Story file path — or, from `/create-stories` (which runs this gate before any
|
||||
story is written), the story inline
|
||||
- Story type (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data)
|
||||
- Acceptance criteria list (verbatim from the story)
|
||||
- The GDD requirement (TR-ID and text) the story covers
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,10 +2,10 @@
|
||||
|
||||
# QL-TEST-COVERAGE — QA Lead Test Coverage Review
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `qa-lead` | Model tier: Sonnet (Tier 2 lead — invoked when a domain specialist's feasibility sign-off is needed)
|
||||
Agent: `qa-lead` | Model tier: session (inherit)
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After implementation stories are complete, before marking an epic
|
||||
done, or at `/gate-check` Production → Polish
|
||||
**Trigger**: After implementation stories are complete — `/story-done` runs it for
|
||||
each story before marking it Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- List of implemented stories with story types (Logic / Integration / Visual / UI / Config)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
|
||||
Agent: `technical-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Architecture, engine risk, performance
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: After biggest technical risks are identified during scope/feasibility
|
||||
(brainstorm Phase 6, quick-design, or any early-stage concept with technical unknowns)
|
||||
(brainstorm Phase 6, or any early-stage concept with technical unknowns)
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Concept's core loop description
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,19 +4,29 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `technical-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Architecture, engine risk, performance
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: Always at `/gate-check` — spawn in parallel with CD-PHASE-GATE and PR-PHASE-GATE
|
||||
**Trigger**: At `/gate-check` when `modes.workflow` is `standard` or `full` — the panel narrows by workflow; spawn in parallel with the rest of it (PR-PHASE-GATE, plus CD-PHASE-GATE and AD-PHASE-GATE at `full`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Target phase name
|
||||
- Target phase name and the resolved `workflow` tier
|
||||
- The target gate's required and recommended artifacts at the resolved tier (from `/gate-check`'s loaded gate file)
|
||||
- Architecture document path (if exists)
|
||||
- Engine reference path
|
||||
- ADR list
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt**:
|
||||
> "Review the current project state for [target phase] gate readiness from a
|
||||
> technical direction perspective. Is the architecture sound for this phase? Are
|
||||
> all high-risk engine domains addressed? Are performance budgets realistic and
|
||||
> documented? Are Foundation-layer decisions complete enough to begin implementation?
|
||||
> technical direction perspective, judged against what this gate requires at this
|
||||
> tier (the required-artifacts list you were given), not what a later phase will
|
||||
> need. Is the technical groundwork this phase requires in place and sound —
|
||||
> entering Systems Design, is the concept feasible on the chosen engine; entering
|
||||
> Technical Setup, do the systems index and GDDs give enough to architect from;
|
||||
> entering Pre-Production, is the architecture sound and are the Foundation-layer
|
||||
> decisions complete enough to begin implementation; entering Production or
|
||||
> later, is the architecture holding up in the build? Are the high-risk engine
|
||||
> domains addressed to the depth this phase requires? Are performance budgets
|
||||
> realistic and documented where this phase requires them?
|
||||
> A required artifact passed as "none" is a finding; one passed as "not expected
|
||||
> before [phase]" or "not required at `workflow: [tier]`" is not a finding.
|
||||
> Return READY, CONCERNS [list], or NOT READY [blockers]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdicts**: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user