mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 04:51:46 +00:00
* Add /vertical-slice skill, prototype overhaul, and workflow integration - Add /vertical-slice skill for pre-production validation (Phase 4 gate) - Overhaul /prototype skill with two-mode design: concept prototype (Phase 1) vs vertical slice (Phase 4), with clearer differentiation and higher standards for VS - Update prototyper agent to own both prototype and vertical-slice workflows - Add prototype-report.md and vertical-slice-report.md output templates - Update WORKFLOW-GUIDE, quick-start, skills-reference, agent-coordination-map, and skill-flow-diagrams to fully integrate both skills into the 7-phase pipeline - Remove orphaned empty quick-prototype/ directory Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * sync v1 counts + polish Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Add entity inventory flow, relax vertical-slice gate, improve UX authoring prompts - /asset-spec: new Phase 0b entity & screen inventory when no argument and no existing inventory — reads GDDs/art-bible, proposes categorized list, writes design/assets/entity-inventory.md collaboratively - /asset-spec: entity/character target falls back to inline user description when no source doc exists, rather than failing - /gate-check: vertical slice changed from blocking to CONCERNS-only when absent; built-but-broken slice still fails; adds entity inventory as gate artifact - /ux-design: convert inline approval prompts to AskUserQuestion for structured option capture at key authoring decision points - workflow-catalog.yaml: entity-inventory step added to pre-production; UX spec min_count raised to 3; vertical-slice and prototype marked required: false with updated descriptions - .gitignore: exclude marrow/ eval tooling directory Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Add missing AskUserQuestion widgets to 7 skills Audit found 11 decision points across 7 skills where structured option prompts were missing — using plain text, auto-selection, or no gate at all. Skills patched: - create-epics: per-epic approval + producer CONCERNS verdict - sprint-plan: producer CONCERNS verdict with scope/timeline options - milestone-review: AT RISK / OFF TRACK producer verdicts require acknowledgement - retrospective: existing-retro handling converted from plain text [A]/[B] - quick-design: classification confirmation + draft approve/revise/redirect - tech-debt add mode: category (6 options) + effort (S/M/L/XL) structured capture - regression-suite: no-arg mode selection instead of silent auto-detect - hotfix: severity confirmation gate before workflow begins Also added AskUserQuestion to allowed-tools headers for retrospective, quick-design, tech-debt, regression-suite, and hotfix. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Prep v1 stable: fix WORKFLOW-GUIDE counts, stale agent names, and skill model fields - WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md: correct agent count (48→49), skill count (66/68→73), add 6 missing skills to Appendix B, fix Creative category count (2→4), replace 3 non-existent agent names with correct ue-*/unity-* specialists, add missing godot-csharp/gdextension specialists to hierarchy, fix production/stories/ paths → production/epics/ - coordination-rules.md: replace "not yet used" with opt-in env var note - quick-start.md: rename duplicate "Validate the concept" label → "Prototype the mechanic" - skill-flow-diagrams.md: remove duplicate legacy UX pipeline section - All 62 skills missing model: field now have explicit model: sonnet Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: comprehensive skill audit — consistency, UX, and flow gaps Two-pass audit fixing ~35 bugs across 41 files. Pre-production flow: - Brainstorm next-steps split into Path A (design-first) and Path B (prototype-first) — eliminates "prototype after architecture" confusion - /architecture-review added to pre-production flow in brainstorm and create-architecture handoffs - gate-check traceability check corrected to requirements-traceability.md - dev-story TR registry error now points to /architecture-review (not /create-epics) - start now writes production/stage.txt on first onboarding AskUserQuestion gaps filled: - balance-check, code-review, hotfix, day-one-patch, consistency-check all gain closing widgets and/or missing allowed-tools declarations - hotfix git branch creation now requires user confirmation - sprint-plan review-mode setup moved to Phase 0 (before gates run) - team-combat gains architecture→implementation approval gate - design-review APPROVED path consolidated from 3 widgets to 1 multiSelect All 9 team-* skills: - Phase 0 review-mode resolution added (solo/lean/full now respected) - team-audio output path fixed (design/gdd/ → design/audio/) - team-level final doc compilation delegated to level-designer subagent - team-narrative localization-lead added to composition list - team-qa sprint path fixed (flat files, not directories) - team-release NO-GO override captures written justification - team-live-ops Cancel verdict now explicitly BLOCKED Other fixes: - Art bible path standardized to design/art/art-bible.md (3 wrong refs) - AD-PHASE-GATE added to lean-mode skip list in director-gates.md - design-system duplicate 5d heading fixed; skeleton decline path added; mandatory agent spawns now respect review mode - story-readiness acceptance criteria thresholds now type-aware - create-stories gains multi-ADR and no-ADR handling guidance - consistency-check creates docs/consistency-failures.md on first run - retrospective frontmatter bash injection replaced with explicit Bash call - smoke-check ls -t gains PowerShell fallback - Conventional Commits format documented in coding-standards.md - gate-check: ADR acceptance gate, QA plan check, chain-of-verification tool-action requirement all added Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: expose --review flag in argument-hints for all team-* skills All 9 team-* skills already implement Phase 0 review-mode resolution internally (full/lean/solo), but none advertised [--review full|lean|solo] in their argument-hint. Users had no way to discover the per-run override. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add SECURITY.md with coordinated disclosure policy Defines scope, reporting process (GitHub private vulnerability reporting), contributor security guidelines for hooks/skills/agents, and 90-day coordinated disclosure timeline. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add CONTRIBUTING.md with framework contribution guidelines Covers what PRs are welcome, skill/hook/agent technical requirements, the collaborative principle, testing expectations, commit format, and platform compatibility requirements. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add v1.0.0-beta → v1.0 upgrade section to UPGRADING.md Documents the 17 commits since the beta tag: new /vertical-slice gate, entity inventory flow in /map-systems, AskUserQuestion widgets across 7 skills, --review flag exposure on team-* skills, bug fixes (#21, #36, #42, #43, #45), and the new CONTRIBUTING.md and SECURITY.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
133 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
133 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: estimate
|
|
description: "Estimates task effort by analyzing complexity, dependencies, historical velocity, and risk factors. Produces a structured estimate with confidence levels."
|
|
argument-hint: "[task-description]"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
|
|
model: sonnet
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Understand the Task
|
|
|
|
Read the task description from the argument. If the description is too vague to estimate meaningfully, ask for clarification before proceeding.
|
|
|
|
Read CLAUDE.md for project context: tech stack, coding standards, architectural patterns, and any estimation guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Read relevant design documents from `design/gdd/` if the task relates to a documented feature or system.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Scan Affected Code
|
|
|
|
Identify files and modules that would need to change:
|
|
|
|
- Assess complexity (size, dependency count, cyclomatic complexity)
|
|
- Identify integration points with other systems
|
|
- Check for existing test coverage in the affected areas
|
|
- Read past sprint data from `production/sprints/` for similar completed tasks and historical velocity
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Analyze Complexity Factors
|
|
|
|
**Code Complexity:**
|
|
- Lines of code in affected files
|
|
- Number of dependencies and coupling level
|
|
- Whether this touches core/engine code vs leaf/feature code
|
|
- Whether existing patterns can be followed or new patterns are needed
|
|
|
|
**Scope:**
|
|
- Number of systems touched
|
|
- New code vs modification of existing code
|
|
- Amount of new test coverage required
|
|
- Data migration or configuration changes needed
|
|
|
|
**Risk:**
|
|
- New technology or unfamiliar libraries
|
|
- Unclear or ambiguous requirements
|
|
- Dependencies on unfinished work
|
|
- Cross-system integration complexity
|
|
- Performance sensitivity
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Generate the Estimate
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Task Estimate: [Task Name]
|
|
Generated: [Date]
|
|
|
|
### Task Description
|
|
[Restate the task clearly in 1-2 sentences]
|
|
|
|
### Complexity Assessment
|
|
|
|
| Factor | Assessment | Notes |
|
|
|--------|-----------|-------|
|
|
| Systems affected | [List] | [Core, gameplay, UI, etc.] |
|
|
| Files likely modified | [Count] | [Key files listed below] |
|
|
| New code vs modification | [Ratio] | |
|
|
| Integration points | [Count] | [Which systems interact] |
|
|
| Test coverage needed | [Low / Medium / High] | |
|
|
| Existing patterns available | [Yes / Partial / No] | |
|
|
|
|
**Key files likely affected:**
|
|
- `[path/to/file1]` -- [what changes here]
|
|
|
|
### Effort Estimate
|
|
|
|
| Scenario | Days | Assumption |
|
|
|----------|------|------------|
|
|
| Optimistic | [X] | Everything goes right, no surprises |
|
|
| Expected | [Y] | Normal pace, minor issues, one round of review |
|
|
| Pessimistic | [Z] | Significant unknowns surface, blocked for a day |
|
|
|
|
**Recommended budget: [Y days]**
|
|
|
|
### Confidence: [High / Medium / Low]
|
|
|
|
[Explain which factors drive the confidence level for this specific task.]
|
|
|
|
### Risk Factors
|
|
|
|
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|
|
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
|
|
|
|
### Dependencies
|
|
|
|
| Dependency | Status | Impact if Delayed |
|
|
|-----------|--------|-------------------|
|
|
|
|
### Suggested Breakdown
|
|
|
|
| # | Sub-task | Estimate | Notes |
|
|
|---|----------|----------|-------|
|
|
| 1 | [Research / spike] | [X days] | |
|
|
| 2 | [Core implementation] | [X days] | |
|
|
| 3 | [Testing and validation] | [X days] | |
|
|
| | **Total** | **[Y days]** | |
|
|
|
|
### Notes and Assumptions
|
|
- [Key assumption that affects the estimate]
|
|
- [Any caveats about scope boundaries]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Output the estimate with a brief summary: recommended budget, confidence level, and the single biggest risk factor.
|
|
|
|
This skill is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — estimate generated.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 5: Next Steps
|
|
|
|
- If confidence is Low: recommend a time-boxed spike (`/prototype`) before committing.
|
|
- If the task is > 10 days: recommend breaking it into smaller stories via `/create-stories`.
|
|
- To schedule the task: run `/sprint-plan update` to add it to the next sprint.
|
|
|
|
### Guidelines
|
|
|
|
- Always give a range (optimistic / expected / pessimistic), never a single number
|
|
- The recommended budget should be the expected estimate, not the optimistic one
|
|
- Round to half-day increments — estimating in hours implies false precision for tasks longer than a day
|
|
- Do not pad estimates silently — call out risk explicitly so the team can decide
|