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/td-phase-gate.md
+15 -5
View File
@@ -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