ksh999000/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git synced 2026-10-16 01:37:05 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Release 1.1.2 — the default path works end to end

Browse Source 
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
2026-09-29 21:32:19 +10:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5.5
parent 7ed2c3e9c4
commit b21fa0f7f2
383 changed files with 22888 additions and 10618 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.claude/docs/director-gates/pr-phase-gate.md
+16 -8
View File
@@ -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