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/skills/pipeline/propagate-design-change.md
+180 -89
View File
@@ -2,111 +2,156 @@
## Skill Summary
`/propagate-design-change` handles GDD revision cascades. When a GDD is updated,
the skill traces all downstream artifacts that reference it: ADRs, TR-registry
entries, stories, and epics. It produces a structured impact report showing what
needs to change and why. The skill does NOT automatically apply changes — it
proposes edits for each affected artifact and asks "May I write" per artifact
before making any modification.
`/propagate-design-change` handles GDD revision cascades into the architecture.
Given a changed GDD path, it asks git what changed (`git diff HEAD`, then the last
commit), summarises the changed sections, checks the entity registry for
downstream GDDs to re-check, then finds every ADR that references the GDD — by
scanning `## GDD Requirements Addressed` tables plus a prose grep for the GDD's
basename — and reads only that affected set. Each affected ADR is classified
Still Valid / Needs Review / Likely Superseded and the full Design Change Impact
Report is shown before any action.
The skill is read-only during analysis and write-gated per artifact during the
update phase. It has no director gates — the analysis itself is mechanical
tracing, not a creative review.
In `full` review mode the TD-CHANGE-IMPACT gate (technical-director) reviews the
report before resolution; in `lean`/`solo` it is skipped with a note. The user
then decides per ADR (Mark Superseded / Update in place / Keep as-is / Skip), and
every file change — an ADR status line, the traceability index, the
`docs/architecture/change-impact-[date]-[system].md` report — has its own ask.
The cascade scope follows the changed system's workflow tier (`full` all ADRs,
`standard` critical ADRs plus those referencing the GDD, `minimal` not applicable).
Verdicts: COMPLETE (impact report saved) or BLOCKED (user declined the write).
---
## Static Assertions (Structural)
Verified automatically by `/skill-test static` — no fixture needed.
Checked against the SKILL.md by `/skill-test spec` — no fixture needed.
- [ ] Has required frontmatter fields: `name`, `description`, `argument-hint`, `user-invocable`, `allowed-tools`
- [ ] Has ≥2 phase headings
- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED, NO IMPACT
- [ ] Contains "May I write" collaborative protocol language (per-artifact approval)
- [ ] Has a next-step handoff at the end
- [ ] Documents that changes are proposed, not applied automatically
- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
- [ ] Contains "May I" ask-before-write language for each file it changes
- [ ] Has a next-step handoff at the end (`/architecture-decision`, `/architecture-review`)
- [ ] Documents that the impact report is shown before any change is made
- [ ] Documents gate TD-CHANGE-IMPACT: runs in full, skipped in lean/solo
---
## Director Gate Checks
No director gates — this skill spawns no director gate agents during analysis.
The impact report is a mechanical tracing operation; no creative or technical
director review is required at the analysis stage.
One gate: **TD-CHANGE-IMPACT** (`technical-director`,
`.claude/docs/director-gates/td-change-impact.md`), spawned after the Design
Change Impact Report is presented and before the per-ADR resolution workflow.
- `full` → spawned with the full impact report (change summary, classifications,
recommended actions)
- `lean` → skipped; output notes "TD-CHANGE-IMPACT skipped — Lean mode."
- `solo` → skipped; output notes "TD-CHANGE-IMPACT skipped — Solo mode."
Verdict handling: APPROVE → resolution workflow; CONCERNS → `AskUserQuestion` with
`Revise the impact assessment` / `Accept with noted concerns` / `Discuss further`;
REJECT → no resolution; the impact is re-analysed first; NOT ASSESSED [missing
input] → never read as APPROVE: the input is supplied and the gate re-run, or the
run goes on with `TD-CHANGE-IMPACT: NOT ASSESSED — [input]` stated in the report
and the Verdict line.
---
## Test Cases
### Case 1: Happy Path — GDD revision affects 2 stories and 1 epic
### Case 1: Happy Path — GDD formula change affects one of two referencing ADRs
**Fixture:**
- `design/gdd/[system].md` exists and has been recently revised (git diff shows changes)
- `production/epics/[layer]/EPIC-[system].md` references this GDD
- 2 story files reference TR-IDs from this GDD
- The changed GDD section affects the acceptance criteria of both stories
- `project.yaml`: `modes.workflow: full`, `modes.review_mode: lean`
- `design/gdd/combat.md` has an uncommitted edit to a damage formula in its
Formulas section
- `docs/architecture/` has 4 ADRs; ADR-0003 and ADR-0005 list `combat.md` in
`## GDD Requirements Addressed`; ADR-0003's decision assumed the old formula,
ADR-0005's decision does not depend on it
- `docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md` exists
**Input:** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/[system].md`
**Input:** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/combat.md`
**Expected behavior:**
1. Skill reads the revised GDD and identifies what changed (git diff or content comparison)
2. Skill scans ADRs, TR-registry, epics, and stories for references to this GDD
3. Skill produces an impact report: 1 epic affected, 2 stories affected
4. Skill shows the proposed change for each artifact
5. For each artifact: asks "May I update [filepath]?" separately
6. Applies changes only after per-artifact approval
1. Verifies the file exists; runs `git diff HEAD -- design/gdd/combat.md` and
derives the changed sections from the hunks
2. Prints the Change Summary (changed / unchanged sections, key changes)
3. Globs the ADRs (N = 4), greps the requirement tables and the `combat`
basename, and reports "Loaded 4 ADRs by scan. 2 reference combat.md (…)"
4. Reads ADR-0003 and ADR-0005 (size checked with `wc -c` first) and classifies
ADR-0003 Needs Review or Likely Superseded, ADR-0005 Still Valid
5. Presents the Design Change Impact Report
6. Notes "TD-CHANGE-IMPACT skipped — Lean mode."
7. Asks "ADR-0003 ([title]) — [status]. What would you like to do?" with the four
options; no resolution ask for ADR-0005
8. Asks "May I update the traceability index?" and "May I write the change impact
report to `docs/architecture/change-impact-[date]-combat.md`?"
9. Verdict: COMPLETE — change impact report saved
**Assertions:**
- [ ] Impact report identifies all 3 affected artifacts (1 epic + 2 stories)
- [ ] Each affected artifact's proposed change is shown before asking to write
- [ ] "May I write" is asked per artifact (not once for all artifacts)
- [ ] Skill does NOT apply any changes without per-artifact approval
- [ ] Verdict is COMPLETE after all approved changes are applied
- [ ] What changed is taken from `git diff`, not from reading two whole documents
- [ ] Only the 2 referencing ADRs are full-read; the other 2 are not described as verified unaffected
- [ ] The full impact report is shown before any resolution ask or write
- [ ] A resolution ask is made per Needs Review / Likely Superseded ADR, one at a time
- [ ] Each file change (ADR status, traceability index, impact report) has its own ask
- [ ] "TD-CHANGE-IMPACT skipped — Lean mode." appears
- [ ] Verdict is COMPLETE after the impact report is written
---
### Case 2: No Impact — Changed GDD has no downstream references
### Case 2: Zero matches — "no impact" versus "cannot trace"
**Fixture:**
- `design/gdd/[system].md` exists and has been revised
- No ADRs, stories, or epics reference this GDD's TR-IDs or GDD path
**Fixture (tables present):**
- `project.yaml`: `modes.workflow: full`
- `design/gdd/combat.md` has an uncommitted edit
- 3 ADRs, each with a `## GDD Requirements Addressed` section, none naming
`combat.md` in the table or in prose
**Input:** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/[system].md`
**Input (both fixtures):** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/combat.md`
**Expected behavior:**
1. Skill reads the revised GDD
2. Skill scans all ADRs, stories, and epics for references
3. No references found
4. Skill outputs: "No downstream impact found for [system].md — no artifacts reference this GDD."
5. No write operations are performed
**Expected behavior (tables present):**
1. Both scans return 0 with N = 3
2. The files-with-matches check for `## GDD Requirements Addressed` is non-empty
3. Reports "No ADR references combat.md — no architecture impact."
**Fixture (tables absent):**
- Same GDD edit; 3 ADRs, none containing a `## GDD Requirements Addressed` section
and none naming `combat.md`
**Expected behavior (tables absent):**
1. Both scans return 0 with N = 3; the section check is also empty
2. Reports "3 ADRs found, none contains a 'GDD Requirements Addressed' section —
traceability cannot be computed (a `gate-pre-production` blocker). Run
`/architecture-decision retrofit [adr]`."
**Assertions:**
- [ ] Skill outputs the "No downstream impact found" message
- [ ] Verdict is NO IMPACT
- [ ] No "May I write" asks are issued (nothing to update)
- [ ] With tables present, the "no architecture impact" message is printed
- [ ] With tables absent, the skill does NOT report "no impact" — it reports that traceability cannot be computed and names `/architecture-decision retrofit [adr]`, the form that skill parses
- [ ] No per-ADR resolution ask and no ADR edit happens in either fixture
- [ ] Skill does NOT error or crash when no references are found
---
### Case 3: In-Progress Story Warning — Referenced story is currently being developed
### Case 3: Edge Case — Empty diff on a GDD with history
**Fixture:**
- A story referencing this GDD has `Status: In Progress`
- The developer has already started implementing this story
- `project.yaml`: `modes.workflow: full`
- `design/gdd/combat.md` is committed, has no uncommitted changes, and was not
touched by the last commit
**Input:** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/[system].md`
**Input:** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/combat.md`
**Expected behavior:**
1. Skill identifies the In Progress story as an affected artifact
2. Skill outputs an elevated warning: "CAUTION: [story-file] is currently In Progress — a developer may be working on this. Coordinate before updating."
3. The warning appears in the impact report before the "May I write" ask for that story
4. User can still approve or skip the update for that story
1. `git diff HEAD -- design/gdd/combat.md` is empty
2. `git diff HEAD~1 HEAD -- design/gdd/combat.md` is also empty
3. Reports "no uncommitted or last-commit changes to `design/gdd/combat.md`" and
asks which revision to propagate
4. Does not report "no impact" and does not scan ADRs before a revision is chosen
**Assertions:**
- [ ] In Progress story is flagged with an elevated warning (distinct from regular affected-artifact entries)
- [ ] Warning appears before the "May I write" ask for that story
- [ ] Skill still offers to update the story — the warning does not block the option
- [ ] Other (non-In-Progress) artifacts are not affected by this warning
- [ ] Both diffs are tried, working tree first, then the last commit
- [ ] The "no uncommitted or last-commit changes" report is printed
- [ ] The user is asked which revision to propagate
- [ ] The empty diff is NOT reported as "no impact"
---
@@ -119,57 +164,103 @@ director review is required at the analysis stage.
**Expected behavior:**
1. Skill detects no argument is provided
2. Skill outputs a usage error: "No GDD specified. Usage: /propagate-design-change design/gdd/[system].md"
3. Skill lists recently modified GDDs as suggestions (git log)
4. No analysis is performed
2. Skill fails with: "Usage: `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/[system].md`
Provide the path to the GDD that was changed."
3. No diff, scan or analysis is performed
**Assertions:**
- [ ] Skill outputs a usage error when no argument is given
- [ ] Usage example is shown with the correct path format
- [ ] No impact analysis is performed without a target GDD
- [ ] Skill outputs the usage message when no argument is given
- [ ] The usage example shows the `design/gdd/[system].md` path format
- [ ] No `git diff` or ADR scan is performed without a target GDD
- [ ] Skill does NOT silently pick a GDD without user input
---
### Case 5: Director Gate — No gate spawned regardless of review mode
### Case 5: Director Gate — TD-CHANGE-IMPACT returns CONCERNS in full mode
**Fixture:**
- A GDD has been revised with downstream references
- `production/session-state/review-mode.txt` exists with `full`
- `project.yaml`: `modes.workflow: full`, `modes.review_mode: full`
- A GDD edit that leaves one referencing ADR classified Needs Review
- TD-CHANGE-IMPACT returns CONCERNS: a second ADR was under-classified
**Input:** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/[system].md`
**Expected behavior:**
1. Skill reads the GDD and traces downstream references
2. Skill does NOT read `production/session-state/review-mode.txt`
3. No director gate agents are spawned at any point
4. Impact report is produced and per-artifact approval proceeds normally
1. The Design Change Impact Report is presented
2. `technical-director` is spawned via `Agent` with gate TD-CHANGE-IMPACT, passing
the full report
3. CONCERNS are surfaced, naming the flagged ADR
4. `AskUserQuestion`: `Revise the impact assessment` / `Accept with noted concerns`
/ `Discuss further`
5. The per-ADR resolution workflow starts only after that answer
**Assertions:**
- [ ] No director gate agents are spawned (no CD-, TD-, PR-, AD- prefixed gates)
- [ ] Skill does NOT read `production/session-state/review-mode.txt`
- [ ] Output contains no "Gate: [GATE-ID]" or gate-skipped entries
- [ ] Review mode has no effect on this skill's behavior
- [ ] TD-CHANGE-IMPACT is spawned after the impact report is shown and before any resolution ask
- [ ] The gate receives the full report (change summary, classifications, recommended actions)
- [ ] The CONCERNS name the flagged ADR and all three options are offered
- [ ] No ADR, traceability or report file is written before the CONCERNS are answered
- [ ] No "TD-CHANGE-IMPACT skipped" note appears in `full` mode
---
### Case 6: Workflow tiers — `minimal` stops before the cascade; `standard` narrows it
**Fixture (minimal):**
- `project.yaml` sets no `modes` keys — `modes.rigor` defaults to `minimal`, so
the workflow resolves to `minimal`
- `design/gdd/loot.md` has an uncommitted edit
**Fixture (standard):**
- `project.yaml`: `modes.workflow: standard`, `modes.review_mode: solo`
- `design/gdd/loot.md` has an uncommitted edit
- 4 ADRs, by their Engine Compatibility `Layer`: ADR-0001 (Foundation, event bus,
no mention of `loot.md`), ADR-0002 (Foundation, save system, lists `loot.md` in
`## GDD Requirements Addressed`), ADR-0006 (Feature, loot tables, names `loot.md`
in prose only), ADR-0007 (Feature, enemy AI, no mention)
**Input (both fixtures):** `/propagate-design-change design/gdd/loot.md`
**Expected behavior (minimal):**
1. The diff and Change Summary run as usual
2. At the ADR step: "No ADR cascade at minimal workflow — design change recorded;
no architecture impact analysis." and the skill stops
**Expected behavior (standard):**
1. The in-scope set is the Foundation ADRs plus any ADR referencing `loot.md`:
ADR-0001, ADR-0002 and ADR-0006, so N = 3; ADR-0007 is out of scope
2. Reports "Loaded 3 ADRs by scan. 2 reference loot.md (1 via requirements table,
1 via prose reference only)."
3. Full-reads only ADR-0002 and ADR-0006; notes "TD-CHANGE-IMPACT skipped — Solo mode."
**Assertions:**
- [ ] Minimal: no ADR is globbed or read, no gate is spawned or noted, and no write ask is made
- [ ] Standard: ADR-0007 is not counted or read, and neither it nor ADR-0001 is described as verified unaffected
- [ ] Standard: the prose-only reference in ADR-0006 is caught by the basename grep
- [ ] Standard: the Foundation ADRs are found from the `**Layer**` rows (`Grep pattern="\*\*Layer\*\*" glob="docs/architecture/adr-*.md"`), not guessed from titles
- [ ] Variant — ADR-0007 has no `**Layer**` row: it is treated as critical (when in doubt, critical) and joins the in-scope set, so N = 4
---
## Protocol Compliance
- [ ] Reads revised GDD and all potentially affected artifacts before producing impact report
- [ ] Impact report shown in full before any "May I write" ask
- [ ] "May I write" asked per artifact — never for the entire set at once
- [ ] In Progress stories flagged with elevated warning before their approval ask
- [ ] No director gates — no review-mode.txt read
- [ ] Ends with next-step handoff appropriate to verdict (COMPLETE or NO IMPACT)
- [ ] Diffs the GDD and scans ADRs before producing the impact report
- [ ] Impact report shown in full before any resolution ask
- [ ] Resolution asked per ADR — never one decision for the whole set
- [ ] "May I" asked before each file change; ADR content is never deleted, only marked Superseded
- [ ] TD-CHANGE-IMPACT runs in `full`, skipped with a named note in `lean`/`solo`
- [ ] Ends with follow-up actions matching the resolutions (`/architecture-decision` for Superseded ADRs, `/architecture-review` when many are affected)
---
## Coverage Notes
- ADR impact (when a GDD change requires an ADR update or new ADR) follows the
same per-artifact approval pattern as story/epic updates — not independently
- A system pinned `minimal` through `system_overrides` on a `standard` project
(its change is N/A) is not given its own fixture; Case 6 reaches `minimal`
through the project default.
- Downstream GDD impact via `design/registry/entities.yaml` is not independently
fixture-tested.
- TR-registry impact (when changed GDD requires new or updated TR-IDs) is part
of the analysis phase but not independently fixture-tested.
- The git diff comparison method (detecting what changed in the GDD) is a runtime
concern — fixtures use pre-arranged content differences.
- A GDD with no git history ("appears to be a new GDD, not a revision") and a
path that does not exist are not separately tested.
- TD-CHANGE-IMPACT APPROVE, REJECT and NOT ASSESSED paths are not separately tested.
- Stories and epics are outside this skill's scope — it cascades into ADRs and the
traceability index only.