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
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/agents/specialists/network-programmer.md
+9 -9
View File
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
## Agent Summary
Domain: Multiplayer networking, state replication, lag compensation, matchmaking protocol design, and network message schemas.
Does NOT own: gameplay logic (only the networking of it), server infrastructure and deployment (devops-engineer).
Model tier: Sonnet (default).
No gate IDs assigned.
---
@@ -11,8 +10,8 @@ No gate IDs assigned.
## Static Assertions (Structural)
- [ ] `description:` field is present and domain-specific (references multiplayer / replication / networking)
- [ ] `allowed-tools:` list includes Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep
- [ ] Model tier is Sonnet (default for specialists)
- [ ] `tools:` list includes Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep
- [ ] Model tier is `inherit` — frontmatter `model:` reads exactly `inherit` (tiers: `.claude/docs/model-tiers.md`)
- [ ] Agent definition does not claim authority over gameplay logic or server deployment infrastructure
---
@@ -36,22 +35,22 @@ No gate IDs assigned.
- Does NOT produce server deployment configuration, Terraform, or AWS setup scripts
- Explicitly states that server infrastructure belongs to `devops-engineer`
- Redirects the request to `devops-engineer`
- May note it can provide the network protocol spec the server needs to implement once infrastructure is set up
- If it offers any part, it is only the network-side contract the server build needs (protocol, message versioning, connection lifecycle) — no deployment, hosting or scaling configuration
### Case 3: State divergence — rollback/reconciliation
**Input:** "Under high latency, clients are diverging from the authoritative server state for physics objects."
**Expected behavior:**
- Proposes a rollback-and-reconciliation approach (client-side prediction + server authoritative correction)
- Specifies the state snapshot format, reconciliation trigger threshold (e.g., >5 units position error), and correction interpolation speed
- Notes the input buffer pattern for deterministic replay
- Does NOT change the physics simulation itself — documents the interface contract for engine-programmer
- Keeps the client's unacknowledged inputs and re-applies them on top of each server correction (the reconciliation half of "client predicts locally, reconciles with server")
- Does NOT change the physics simulation itself (not networking code) — documents the interface contract the simulation must expose (state snapshot, correction entry point) and asks before any change to that system ("This will require changes to [other system]. Should I coordinate with that first?")
### Case 4: Anti-cheat conflict
**Input:** "We want client-authoritative position for smooth movement, but anti-cheat requires server validation."
**Expected behavior:**
- Surfaces the direct conflict: client-authority is fast but exploitable; server-authority is secure but requires latency compensation
- Coordinates with `security-engineer` to agree on the validation boundary
- Proposes a compromise (server validates position within a tolerance band, flags outliers) rather than unilaterally deciding
- Proposes a compromise (e.g., server validates position within a tolerance band and flags outliers) rather than unilaterally deciding
- Documents the trade-off and escalates the final decision to `technical-director` if security-engineer and network-programmer cannot agree
### Case 5: Context pass — latency budget
@@ -60,7 +59,7 @@ No gate IDs assigned.
- References the 80ms RTT budget explicitly in the design
- Selects replication approach calibrated to that budget (e.g., rollback netcode is preferred for fighting games at this latency)
- Specifies input delay frames calculated from the 80ms budget (e.g., 2 frames at 60fps = 33ms buffer)
- Flags that rollback netcode requires gameplay-programmer to implement deterministic simulation
- Flags that rollback netcode needs a deterministic, re-simulatable game state, and routes it to the roles its coordination line names: engine-programmer for physics and simulation determinism, gameplay-programmer for the gameplay code that rollback re-simulates
---
@@ -72,10 +71,11 @@ No gate IDs assigned.
- [ ] Does not implement gameplay logic — only specifies the network contract for it
- [ ] Coordinates with security-engineer on anti-cheat boundaries
- [ ] Designs to explicit latency targets from provided context
- [ ] Asks "May I write this to [filepath]?" naming the file before writing
---
## Coverage Notes
- Replication strategy (Case 1) should include a bandwidth calculation reviewable by technical-director
- Rollback/reconciliation (Case 3) must document the engine-programmer interface contract clearly
- Rollback/reconciliation (Case 3) must document the interface contract the physics simulation exposes clearly
- Anti-cheat conflict (Case 4) confirms the agent escalates rather than unilaterally deciding security trade-offs