mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 01:37:05 +00:00
Release 1.1.0 — one config file, and a process weight you choose
`project.yaml` at the repo root is now the single source of truth for a project's configuration, replacing `production/stage.txt`, `production/review-mode.txt` and `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` (all three still read as a fallback; nothing is force-deleted). **`modes.rigor` — one question instead of six.** `minimal`, `standard` or `full` fronts six knobs: `modes.workflow`, `docs.density`, `qa.level`, `modes.story_granularity`, `modes.review_mode` and `team.size`. It defaults to `minimal`, which is a change from 1.0's behaviour: the heavier tier was measured costing several times more to reach working code without producing a better result, and returning nothing when a fresh developer inherited the project. Pin `modes.rigor: standard` to keep 1.0's process level. Also in this release: - `/settings` to view or change any setting, and `project.local.yaml` for per-developer preferences that should not be committed. - `system_overrides` to hold one system to a higher standard than the rest of the project, and `testing.strict` to set per test type whether missing evidence blocks a story or warns. - A story that changes anything the player sees is not closed until the game has been launched, observed, and a screenshot retained in `production/qa/evidence/`. A parse check is not a run. This holds at every rigor level, including `minimal`, where automated tests are waived but the look is not. - The code root is engine-specific and enforced as such: Godot `src/`, Unity `Assets/`, Unreal `Source/<Module>/`. Two of the three will not build a project laid out any other way. - Migration tooling for existing projects: `.claude/scripts/migrate-v1-config.sh` converts a 1.0 layout, non-destructively by default, with a report to review before `--finalize` deletes anything. - Ask-before-write holds regardless of personal automation settings. Upgrading from 1.0 or earlier: see UPGRADING.md. Full list of changes: CHANGELOG.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016xvzG3i7pWQg4LjyDwWMXd
This commit is contained in:
co-authored by
Claude Opus 5
parent
984023ddac
commit
d05699707f
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
> Gate definition. The spawning skill passes this file's path to the director agent; the AGENT reads it — the parent session should not.
|
||||
|
||||
# AD-PHASE-GATE — Visual Readiness at Phase Transition
|
||||
|
||||
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: Sonnet | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger**: Always at `/gate-check` — spawn in parallel with CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, and PR-PHASE-GATE
|
||||
|
||||
**Context to pass**:
|
||||
- Target phase name
|
||||
- List of all art/visual artifacts present (file paths)
|
||||
- Visual identity anchor from `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (if present)
|
||||
- Art bible path if it exists (`design/art/art-bible.md`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt**:
|
||||
> "Review the current project state for [target phase] gate readiness from a visual
|
||||
> direction perspective. Is the visual identity established and documented at the
|
||||
> level this phase requires? Are the right visual artifacts in place? Would visual
|
||||
> teams be able to begin their work without visual direction gaps that cause costly
|
||||
> rework later? Are there visual decisions that are being deferred past their latest
|
||||
> responsible moment? Return READY, CONCERNS [specific visual direction gaps that
|
||||
> could cause production rework], or NOT READY [visual blockers that must exist
|
||||
> before this phase can succeed — specify what artifact is missing and why it
|
||||
> matters at this stage]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdicts**: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user