mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 10:17:06 +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
@@ -2,9 +2,8 @@
|
||||
|
||||
## Agent Summary
|
||||
- **Domain**: Detailed test case authoring, bug reports (structured format), test execution documentation, regression checklists, smoke check execution docs, test evidence recording per the project's coding standards
|
||||
- **Does NOT own**: Test strategy and test plan design (qa-lead), implementation fixes for found bugs (appropriate programmer), QA process architecture (qa-lead)
|
||||
- **Does NOT own**: Test strategy and test plan design (qa-lead), implementation fixes for found bugs (reported for assignment through qa-lead), severity calls above S2 (qa-lead), QA process architecture (qa-lead)
|
||||
- **Category**: qa
|
||||
- **Model tier**: Sonnet
|
||||
- **Gate IDs**: None; flags ambiguous acceptance criteria to qa-lead rather than resolving independently
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -12,8 +11,8 @@
|
||||
## Static Assertions (Structural)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] `description:` field is present and domain-specific (references test cases, bug reports, test execution, regression testing)
|
||||
- [ ] `allowed-tools:` list matches the agent's role (Read/Write for tests/ and production/qa/evidence/; no source code editing tools)
|
||||
- [ ] Model tier is Sonnet (default for QA specialists)
|
||||
- [ ] `tools:` list is Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash. The grant cannot be path-scoped, so the no-source-edits boundary must be written in the body: "What This Agent Must NOT Do" lists "Fix bugs (report them for assignment)", and the orchestrated-run write exception covers only a new artifact under `production/`, `docs/` or `tests/`, "never an edit to existing source or config"
|
||||
- [ ] Model tier is `inherit` — frontmatter `model:` reads exactly `inherit` (tiers: `.claude/docs/model-tiers.md`)
|
||||
- [ ] Agent definition does not claim authority over test strategy, fix implementation, or acceptance criterion definition
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -37,8 +36,9 @@
|
||||
**Input**: "You found a bug where the save system loses inventory data on version mismatch. Please fix it."
|
||||
**Expected behavior**:
|
||||
- Does not produce any implementation code or attempt to fix the save system
|
||||
- States clearly: "Bug fixes are implemented by the appropriate programmer (gameplay-programmer for save system logic); I document the bug and write regression test cases to verify the fix"
|
||||
- Offers to produce: (a) a structured bug report for the programmer, (b) regression test cases for TC-SAVE-005 (version mismatch) that can be run after the fix
|
||||
- States that it does not fix bugs — it reports them for assignment (its own rule: "Fix bugs (report them for assignment)"), and the report goes up through qa-lead, to whom it reports; it documents the bug and writes the tests that verify the fix
|
||||
- Offers to produce: (a) a bug report in `/bug-report`'s template — ID `BUG-NNNN`, Severity (`S1-Critical` … `S4-Low`), Priority (`P1-Fix this sprint` … `P4-Won't fix`), `**Status**: Open`, System, Steps to Reproduce, Expected vs. Actual Result — at `production/qa/bugs/BUG-NNNN.md`, (b) a targeted regression checklist or regression test cases for TC-SAVE-005 (version mismatch) that can be run after the fix
|
||||
- Does not set a severity above S2 itself: if it judges the inventory loss to be S1, it escalates that call to qa-lead ("Make severity judgments above S2 (escalate to qa-lead)")
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 3: Ambiguous acceptance criterion — flag to qa-lead
|
||||
**Input**: "Write test cases for the tutorial. The acceptance criterion in the story says 'tutorial should feel intuitive.'"
|
||||
@@ -58,30 +58,33 @@
|
||||
- Does NOT produce a generic "test everything" checklist — the value of a targeted regression is specificity
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 5: Context pass — test evidence format from coding-standards.md
|
||||
**Input context**: coding-standards.md specifies: Logic stories require automated unit tests in `tests/unit/[system]/`. Visual/Feel stories require screenshot + lead sign-off in `production/qa/evidence/`. UI stories require manual walkthrough doc in `production/qa/evidence/`.
|
||||
**Input context**: coding-standards.md (imported by CLAUDE.md) specifies: Logic stories require automated unit tests in `tests/unit/[system]/`. Visual/Feel stories require screenshot + lead sign-off in `production/qa/evidence/`. UI stories require a retained screenshot of each screen touched in `production/qa/evidence/`. The project's `project.yaml` sets `qa.level: minimal`.
|
||||
**Input**: "Write test cases for the inventory UI (a UI story): grid layout, item tooltip display, and drag-and-drop reordering."
|
||||
**Expected behavior**:
|
||||
- Classifies this correctly as a UI story per the provided standards
|
||||
- Produces a manual walkthrough test document (not automated unit tests) — because the coding standard specifies manual walkthrough for UI stories
|
||||
- Produces manual test cases whose evidence is a retained screenshot of each screen touched (not automated unit tests) — because the coding standard specifies screenshots for UI stories
|
||||
- Specifies the output location: `production/qa/evidence/` (not `tests/unit/`)
|
||||
- Test cases include: grid layout verification (all items appear, no overflow), tooltip display (correct item name, stats, description appear on hover/focus), and drag-and-drop (item moves to target slot, original slot becomes empty, slot limits respected)
|
||||
- Notes that this is ADVISORY evidence level per the coding standards, not BLOCKING — explicitly states this so the team knows the gate level
|
||||
- States the story type (UI), output location and gate level (BLOCKING) at the start of the test cases, as its Test Evidence Routing section requires for every test case it produces
|
||||
- Does not drop or downgrade the screenshot evidence because the project runs `qa.level: minimal` — coding-standards.md: "Not waived at `qa.level: minimal` — tests are, the look is not"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Protocol Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Stays within declared domain (test case authoring, bug reports, test execution documentation, regression checklists)
|
||||
- [ ] Redirects bug fix requests to appropriate programmers and offers to document the bug and write regression tests
|
||||
- [ ] Declines bug fix requests — reports the bug for assignment through qa-lead and offers a bug report plus regression tests, without writing the fix
|
||||
- [ ] Flags ambiguous acceptance criteria to qa-lead rather than inventing a testable interpretation
|
||||
- [ ] Produces targeted regression checklists (system-specific) not full-game regression passes
|
||||
- [ ] Uses the correct test evidence format and output location per coding-standards.md
|
||||
- [ ] Writes bugs in `/bug-report`'s template (ID `BUG-NNNN`, Severity, Priority, Status, System) — the lines `/bug-triage` parses — never a format of its own
|
||||
- [ ] Asks "May I write this to [filepath]?" naming the file before writing any test file, test case list or checklist
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Notes
|
||||
- Case 1 (test case completeness) is the foundational quality test — missing fields (precondition, steps, expected result, pass criteria) are a failure
|
||||
- Case 3 (ambiguous criterion) is a coordination test — qa-tester must not silently accept untestable criteria
|
||||
- Case 5 requires coding-standards.md to be in context with the test evidence table; the agent must correctly apply evidence type and location
|
||||
- The ADVISORY vs. BLOCKING gate level (Case 5) is a detail that affects story completion — verify the agent reports it
|
||||
- Case 5 relies on coding-standards.md, which CLAUDE.md imports, so the test evidence table and the `qa.level: minimal` rule are always in the agent's context; the agent must correctly apply evidence type and location
|
||||
- The ADVISORY vs. BLOCKING gate level (Case 5) is a detail that affects story completion — verify the agent reports it and does not waive visual evidence at `qa.level: minimal`
|
||||
- No automated runner; review manually or via `/skill-test`
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user