ksh999000/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git synced 2026-10-16 10:17:06 +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/playtest-report/SKILL.md
+20 -6
View File
@@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ model: sonnet
!`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation`
Resolved above — use as-is; `--review` overrides `review_mode` for this run. No
block → defaults in `.claude/docs/config-resolution.md`.
## Phase 1: Parse Arguments
@@ -23,8 +26,11 @@ Every `AskUserQuestion` call follows `.claude/docs/automation-modes.md`
Determine the mode:
- `new` → generate a blank playtest report template
- `new` → generate a blank playtest report template. This mode ends after
Phase 2A: a blank template has nothing to route, review or save.
- `analyze [path]` → read raw notes and fill in the template with structured findings
- No argument → ask via `AskUserQuestion`: `[A] New blank template` /
`[B] Analyze notes — I'll give you the path`
---
@@ -94,12 +100,19 @@ Generate this template and output it to the user:
3. [Third priority]
```
In `new` mode, stop here with: Verdict: **COMPLETE** — blank template output; nothing saved.
---
## Phase 2B: Analyze Mode
Read the raw notes at the provided path. Cross-reference with existing design documents. Fill in the template above with structured findings. Flag any playtest observations that conflict with design intent.
An observation that describes a defect — a crash, a framerate drop, a softlock,
something that plainly breaks rather than plays badly — goes in the **Bugs
Encountered** table, not under Gameplay Flow → Pain points, and is routed as a
bug in Phase 3. Pain points are for how the game feels to play.
---
## Phase 3: Action Routing
@@ -132,12 +145,13 @@ After categorising findings, spawn `creative-director` via `Agent` using gate **
Pass: the structured report content, game pillars and core fantasy (from
`design/gdd/game-concept.md`), the specific hypothesis being tested. **If
`game-concept.md` does not exist** — expected at `minimal`, where
`design/game-brief.md` replaces it — pass the brief's pillars instead, and if
neither exists say so in the prompt: *"No pillars available — assess against
the hypothesis alone."* A director gate handed silence about pillars will
invent them.
`design/game-brief.md` replaces it — the brief has no pillars: pass its
one-sentence pitch and its "Who it's for / what they feel" line instead, and say
they stand in for pillars. If neither document exists, say so in the prompt:
*"No pillars available — assess against the hypothesis alone."* A director gate
handed silence about pillars will invent them.
Present the creative director's assessment before saving the report. If CONCERNS or REJECT, add a `## Creative Director Assessment` section to the report capturing the verdict and feedback. If APPROVE, note the approval in the report.
Present the creative director's assessment before saving the report. If CONCERNS or REJECT, add a `## Creative Director Assessment` section to the report capturing the verdict and feedback. If APPROVE, note the approval in the report. If NOT ASSESSED (the director lacked an input — `.claude/docs/director-gates.md`), add the same section naming what was missing; it is not an approval.
---