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/skills/architecture-review/SKILL.md
+33 -17
View File
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ not the same finding:
|---|---|---|
| N_adr matches | Normal. | Proceed on the scanned sections. |
| Some ADRs match, some do not | Those ADRs are missing sections. | Record each as a **structural gap** in the Phase 7 report — a missing `## GDD Requirements Addressed` is itself a traceability finding. |
| **0 matches, N_adr > 0** | **Malformed ADRs**, not "no architecture". | "[N_adr] ADRs found, none carries a scannable section — run `/architecture-decision [file] retrofit` on each." Do **not** report zero coverage; that would read as a design failure when it is a format failure. |
| **0 matches, N_adr > 0** | **Malformed ADRs**, not "no architecture". | "[N_adr] ADRs found, none carries a scannable section — run `/architecture-decision retrofit [file]` on each." Do **not** report zero coverage; that would read as a design failure when it is a format failure. |
Escalate to a full read of one ADR only when judging a conflict needs its
reasoning (Phase 4) — that is a per-ADR decision, not a blanket load.
@@ -312,8 +312,11 @@ Full-read a story only when its Test Evidence section is missing or ambiguous.
### Step 3b-2 — Load test files
Glob `tests/unit/**/*_test.*` and `tests/integration/**/*_test.*`.
Build an index: system → [test file paths].
Glob the engine's test root (`.claude/docs/directory-structure.md`): Godot
`tests/unit/**/*_test.*` and `tests/integration/**/*_test.*`; Unity
`Assets/Tests/**/*Tests.cs`; Unreal `Source/*/Private/Tests/**/*.cpp`. With no
engine configured, say the test index could not be built rather than reading an
empty glob as "no tests". Build an index: system → [test file paths].
For each test file path from Step 3b-1, confirm via Glob whether the file
actually exists. Note MISSING if the stated path does not exist.
@@ -472,7 +475,7 @@ Post-Cutoff API Conflicts:
After completing the engine audit above, spawn the **primary engine specialist** via `Agent` for a domain-expert second opinion:
- Resolve the primary specialist: `<engine>-specialist` derived from `engine.name` in `project.yaml` (Godot→`godot-specialist`, Unity→`unity-specialist`, Unreal→`unreal-specialist`); if `engine.name` is absent or empty, read the Primary line of the `## Engine Specialists` section in `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md`
- If no engine is configured (neither source yields an engine), skip this consultation **Record `Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED — no engine configured (`engine.name` unset in `project.yaml`)` in this run's output.** A skipped check that says nothing is indistinguishable from a check that passed; the reader cannot tell engine guidance was never sought.
- If no engine is configured (neither source yields an engine), skip this consultation **Record ``Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED — no engine configured (`engine.name` unset in `project.yaml`)`` in this run's output.** A skipped check that says nothing is indistinguishable from a check that passed; the reader cannot tell engine guidance was never sought.
- Spawn `subagent_type: [primary specialist]` with: all ADRs that contain engine-specific decisions or `Post-Cutoff APIs Used` fields, the engine reference docs, and the Phase 5 audit findings. Ask them to:
1. Confirm or challenge each audit finding — specialists may know of engine nuances not captured in the reference docs
2. Identify engine-specific anti-patterns in the ADRs that the audit may have missed (e.g., using the wrong Godot node type, Unity component coupling, Unreal subsystem misuse)
@@ -617,11 +620,16 @@ FAIL: Critical gaps (Foundation/Core layer requirements uncovered),
coverage; it can only report that it had nothing to compare.
- **An ADR is unreadable or has no `## Status`**, so its rows are `❓` and their
coverage is unknown rather than absent.
- **Phase 6 could not run** — no `docs/architecture/architecture.md`. This does
not by itself force NOT ASSESSED for the whole review (ADR traceability is the
primary scope and can still be complete), but it must appear as a named
`NOT ASSESSED` **line item** in the report rather than as absent findings. Emit
the overall NOT ASSESSED verdict only if Phase 6 was the review's stated scope.
- **Phase 6 could not run** — no `docs/architecture/architecture.md`. It must
appear as a named `NOT ASSESSED` **line item** in the report rather than as
absent findings. ADR traceability can still be complete, so a CONCERNS or FAIL
finding elsewhere still stands; but in `full` mode, whose scope includes
Phase 6, the verdict cannot be PASS — a review that could not look at part of
its scope has not shown that part is sound, so it is NOT ASSESSED.
- **No engine is configured** (`full` and `engine` modes) — Phase 5 has no pinned
engine reference to audit the ADRs against, and the specialist consultation was
skipped. Record the `Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED` line item; like Phase 6
above, it keeps the verdict from PASS.
Do not resolve any of these to PASS on the grounds that no gap was *found*. No
gap was looked for.
@@ -639,10 +647,15 @@ gap was looked for.
Use `AskUserQuestion` for the write approval:
- "Review complete. What would you like to write?"
- [A] Write all three files (review report + traceability index + TR registry)
- [A] Write all three files — review report (`docs/architecture/architecture-review-[date].md`), traceability index (`docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md`), TR registry (`docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml`)
- [B] Write review report only — `docs/architecture/architecture-review-[date].md`
- [C] Don't write anything yet — I need to review the findings first
When Phase 4 found a 🔴 conflict and `docs/consistency-failures.md` exists, name
that file in option [A] as well — "…and append [N] conflict entr(y/ies) to
`docs/consistency-failures.md`". Only [A] appends there (see Reflexion Log
Update); [B] writes the report and nothing else.
### RTM Output (rtm mode only)
For `rtm` mode, use `AskUserQuestion`:
@@ -725,8 +738,9 @@ across every subsequent architecture review.
### Reflexion Log Update
After writing the review report, append any 🔴 CONFLICT entries found in Phase 4
to `docs/consistency-failures.md` (if the file exists):
When the user chose Phase 8's [A] — the option that named this file — append
any 🔴 CONFLICT entries found in Phase 4 to `docs/consistency-failures.md` (if
the file exists), after writing the review report:
```markdown
### [YYYY-MM-DD] — /architecture-review — 🔴 CONFLICT
@@ -747,7 +761,7 @@ After writing all approved files, silently append to
`production/session-state/active.md`:
## Session Extract — /architecture-review [date]
- Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL]
- Verdict: [PASS / NOT ASSESSED / CONCERNS / FAIL]
- Requirements: [N] total — [X] covered, [Y] partial, [Z] gaps
- New TR-IDs registered: [N, or "None"]
- GDD revision flags: [comma-separated GDD names, or "None"]
@@ -757,7 +771,9 @@ After writing all approved files, silently append to
If `active.md` does not exist, create it with this block as the initial content.
Confirm in conversation: "Session state updated."
The traceability index format:
The traceability index — written to `docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md`,
the path `/propagate-design-change` and the Pre-Production gate read; `rtm` mode
later extends the same file with story and test columns — uses this format:
```markdown
# Architecture Traceability Index
@@ -789,7 +805,7 @@ After completing the review and writing approved files, present:
1. **Immediate actions**: List the top 3 ADRs to create (highest-impact gaps first,
Foundation layer before Feature layer)
2. **Pre-gate checklist**: Check whether these exist via Glob and mark each ✅ or ❌:
- `tests/unit/` and `tests/integration/` directories — if ❌: run `/test-setup`
- the engine's test root — `tests/unit/` and `tests/integration/` (Godot), `Assets/Tests/EditMode/` and `Assets/Tests/PlayMode/` (Unity), `Source/<Module>/Private/Tests/` (Unreal) — if ❌: run `/test-setup`
- `.github/workflows/tests.yml` — if ❌: run `/test-setup`
- `design/accessibility-requirements.md` — if ❌: run `/ux-design`
- `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md` — if ❌: run `/ux-design`
@@ -837,8 +853,8 @@ partial report** (retry scope here = fewer GDDs / single-system). Full procedure
describe what collaborative mode requires, not universal behavior.
1. **Read silently** — do not narrate every file read
2. **Show the matrix** — present the full traceability matrix before asking for
anything; let the user see the state
2. **Show the matrix** — present the full traceability matrix before any write
approval; let the user see the state
3. **Don't guess** — if a requirement is ambiguous, ask: "Is [X] a technical
requirement or a design preference?"
4. **Draft before approval** — always show the content that will be written (the