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
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: code-review
|
||||
description: "Architectural code review — coding standards, SOLID, testability, performance concerns."
|
||||
argument-hint: "[path-to-file-or-directory]"
|
||||
user-invocable: true
|
||||
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Agent, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/code-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)
|
||||
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(git log *), Agent, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/code-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)
|
||||
model: sonnet
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -68,28 +68,32 @@ specialist carries `shader: null` and `ui: null`. The config reader returns the
|
||||
four-character string `"null"` for these, which is not empty and therefore reads
|
||||
as configured. `null`, empty, and missing are the same state here.
|
||||
|
||||
If no engine is configured (no `engine.name` in `project.yaml`, and `technical-preferences.md` reads `[TO BE CONFIGURED]` or is missing), skip engine specialist steps. **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 (no `engine.name` in `project.yaml`, and `technical-preferences.md` reads `[TO BE CONFIGURED]` or is missing), skip engine specialist steps. **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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: ADR Compliance Check
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument:** `/code-review [file(s)]` may optionally include a story file path as the last argument (e.g., `/code-review src/combat/attack.gd production/epics/combat/story-001.md`). If a story path is provided, read it to extract the governing ADR reference.
|
||||
**Argument:** `/code-review [file(s)]` may optionally include a story file path as the last argument (e.g., `/code-review Assets/Scripts/Combat/Attack.cs production/epics/combat/story-001.md`). If a story path is provided, read it to extract the governing ADR reference.
|
||||
|
||||
Search for ADR references in, in priority order:
|
||||
1. The story file (if provided as argument)
|
||||
2. Header comments at the top of the implementation files
|
||||
3. Commit messages referencing these files (`git log --oneline -- [file]`)
|
||||
|
||||
Look for patterns like `ADR-NNN` or `docs/architecture/ADR-`.
|
||||
Look for patterns like `ADR-NNNN` or `docs/architecture/adr-` (either case).
|
||||
|
||||
If no ADR references found, note: "No ADR references found — ADR compliance check skipped. For full ADR compliance review, provide the story path: `/code-review [files] [story-path]`."
|
||||
|
||||
For each referenced ADR, load **only the sections this check needs — never an unbounded full read.** A substantial ADR exceeds the 25k-token `Read` cap, and a capped read's only recovery is paging the remainder — the most expensive way to read a file (measured ~103k vs ~54k tokens on a 34k-token ADR). Use the same pattern as `/dev-story` and `/create-stories`:
|
||||
For each referenced ADR, load **only the sections this check needs — never an unbounded full read.** A substantial ADR exceeds the 25k-token `Read` cap, and a capped read's only recovery is paging the remainder — the most expensive way to read a file. Use the same pattern as `/dev-story` and `/create-stories`:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Map the headings** (cheap — line numbers only): `Grep pattern="^## " path="[adr-file]" output_mode="content" -n`
|
||||
2. **Bounded-read only `## Decision` and `## Consequences`**, using the line numbers to set `Read(offset, limit)` spans that end where the next heading begins. If the heading map is empty (a nonstandard ADR predating the template), fall back to one full `Read`; if that truncates at the cap, grep for the decision/consequence content directly rather than paging the remainder.
|
||||
|
||||
A referenced ADR whose file is missing, or that cannot be read, makes ADR
|
||||
Compliance `NOT ASSESSED — [ADR] could not be read`: name it. No reference at
|
||||
all is `NO ADRS FOUND`, a different result.
|
||||
|
||||
From those two sections, classify any deviation:
|
||||
|
||||
- **ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION** (BLOCKING): Uses a pattern explicitly rejected in the ADR
|
||||
@@ -155,7 +159,7 @@ Spawn all applicable specialists simultaneously via `Agent` — do not wait for
|
||||
> promoted to a defect on the strength of confident phrasing.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Why this is mandatory.** Agents are reliable when deriving and unreliable when
|
||||
> diagnosing existing code. Measured in practice: three separate agents
|
||||
> diagnosing existing code. In practice, three separate agents
|
||||
> produced three different **wrong** claims about the same six-line function,
|
||||
> every one fluent enough to pass a skim — including a spawned specialist here
|
||||
> alleging a float-precision bug that enumerating the inputs disproves. Without
|
||||
@@ -201,7 +205,7 @@ Collect all specialist findings before producing output.
|
||||
### Engine Specialist Findings: [N/A — no engine configured / CLEAN / ISSUES FOUND]
|
||||
[Findings from engine specialist(s), or "No engine configured." if skipped]
|
||||
|
||||
### Testability: [N/A — Visual/Feel or Config story / TESTABLE / GAPS / BLOCKING]
|
||||
### Testability: [N/A — no story path given / N/A — Visual/Feel or Config story / TESTABLE / GAPS / BLOCKING]
|
||||
[qa-tester findings: test hooks, coverage gaps, untestable paths, new edge cases]
|
||||
[If BLOCKING: implementation must expose [X] before tests in ## QA Test Cases can run]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -209,7 +213,7 @@ Collect all specialist findings before producing output.
|
||||
[List each ADR checked, result, and any deviations with severity]
|
||||
|
||||
### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing]
|
||||
[List failures with line references]
|
||||
[List failures with line references; a missing doc comment names the method or class]
|
||||
|
||||
### Architecture: [NOT ASSESSED / CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND]
|
||||
[List specific architectural concerns]
|
||||
@@ -232,6 +236,20 @@ Collect all specialist findings before producing output.
|
||||
### Verdict: [NOT ASSESSED / APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Choose the verdict, first match wins:
|
||||
- **CHANGES REQUIRED** — anything under Required Changes
|
||||
- **NOT ASSESSED** — nothing to review (the no-data path above), the engine
|
||||
specialist review did not run — no engine configured, or a specialist that
|
||||
could not be spawned — or any report section reads `NOT ASSESSED` (ADR
|
||||
Compliance with a referenced ADR that could not be read, Architecture, SOLID);
|
||||
name which. NOT ASSESSED ranks below CHANGES REQUIRED, because a known
|
||||
defect is more actionable than a skipped check, and above both approvals: a
|
||||
review that skipped the engine check has not approved the code. (`NO ADRS
|
||||
FOUND` is not NOT ASSESSED: with no ADR to check, it does not stop an
|
||||
approval.)
|
||||
- **APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS** — only Suggestions
|
||||
- **APPROVED** — no required changes and no suggestions
|
||||
|
||||
This skill is read-only — no files are written.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -239,15 +257,22 @@ This skill is read-only — no files are written.
|
||||
## Phase 9: Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
Use `AskUserQuestion`:
|
||||
- Prompt: "Code review complete — verdict: [NOT ASSESSED / APPROVED / CHANGES REQUIRED / MAJOR REVISION]. How would you like to proceed?"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Code review complete — verdict: [NOT ASSESSED / APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]. How would you like to proceed?" (the Phase 8 verdict, word for word)
|
||||
- Options (adjust based on verdict):
|
||||
- If APPROVED:
|
||||
- `[A] Run /story-done to mark the story complete`
|
||||
- `[B] Stop here`
|
||||
- If CHANGES REQUIRED or MAJOR REVISION:
|
||||
- If APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS:
|
||||
- `[A] Apply the suggestions, then run /story-done`
|
||||
- `[B] Run /story-done now — suggestions noted for later`
|
||||
- `[C] Stop here`
|
||||
- If CHANGES REQUIRED:
|
||||
- `[A] Fix the issues and re-run /code-review`
|
||||
- `[B] Run /story-done anyway with noted exceptions`
|
||||
- `[C] Stop here`
|
||||
- If NOT ASSESSED:
|
||||
- `[A] Fix what stopped the review (point me at the code, run /setup-engine, or fix the unreadable ADR reference), then re-run /code-review`
|
||||
- `[B] Stop here`
|
||||
|
||||
If an ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION is found:
|
||||
- If the violation contradicts an **existing ADR**: fix the implementation to comply with `docs/architecture/[adr-file].md`. If the design has legitimately changed, run `/architecture-decision` to formally *revise* the existing ADR — do not create a competing one.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user