Files
Donchitos 984023ddac Release v1.0.0 — concept-prototype/vertical-slice split, workflow restructure, polish (#50)
* 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>
2026-05-13 20:15:08 +10:00

157 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown

---
name: milestone-review
description: "Generates a comprehensive milestone progress review including feature completeness, quality metrics, risk assessment, and go/no-go recommendation. Use at milestone checkpoints or when evaluating readiness for a milestone deadline."
argument-hint: "[milestone-name|current] [--review full|lean|solo]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Task, AskUserQuestion
model: sonnet
---
## Phase 0: Parse Arguments
Extract the milestone name (`current` or a specific name) and resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):
1. If `--review [full|lean|solo]` was passed → use that
2. Else read `production/review-mode.txt` → use that value
3. Else → default to `lean`
See `.claude/docs/director-gates.md` for the full check pattern.
---
## Phase 1: Load Milestone Data
Read the milestone definition from `production/milestones/`. If the argument is `current`, use the most recently modified milestone file.
Read all sprint reports for sprints within this milestone from `production/sprints/`.
---
## Phase 2: Scan Codebase Health
- Scan for `TODO`, `FIXME`, `HACK` markers that indicate incomplete work
- Check the risk register at `production/risk-register/`
---
## Phase 3: Generate the Milestone Review
```markdown
# Milestone Review: [Milestone Name]
## Overview
- **Target Date**: [Date]
- **Current Date**: [Today]
- **Days Remaining**: [N]
- **Sprints Completed**: [X/Y]
## Feature Completeness
### Fully Complete
| Feature | Acceptance Criteria | Test Status |
|---------|-------------------|-------------|
### Partially Complete
| Feature | % Done | Remaining Work | Risk to Milestone |
|---------|--------|---------------|------------------|
### Not Started
| Feature | Priority | Can Cut? | Impact of Cutting |
|---------|----------|----------|------------------|
## Quality Metrics
- **Open S1 Bugs**: [N] -- [List]
- **Open S2 Bugs**: [N]
- **Open S3 Bugs**: [N]
- **Test Coverage**: [X%]
- **Performance**: [Within budget? Details]
## Code Health
- **TODO count**: [N across codebase]
- **FIXME count**: [N]
- **HACK count**: [N]
- **Technical debt items**: [List critical ones]
## Risk Assessment
| Risk | Status | Impact if Realized | Mitigation Status |
|------|--------|-------------------|------------------|
## Velocity Analysis
- **Planned vs Completed** (across all sprints): [X/Y tasks = Z%]
- **Trend**: [Improving / Stable / Declining]
- **Adjusted estimate for remaining work**: [Days needed at current velocity]
## Scope Recommendations
### Protect (Must ship with milestone)
- [Feature and why]
### At Risk (May need to cut or simplify)
- [Feature and risk]
### Cut Candidates (Can defer without compromising milestone)
- [Feature and impact of cutting]
## Go/No-Go Assessment
**Recommendation**: [GO / CONDITIONAL GO / NO-GO]
**Conditions** (if conditional):
- [Condition 1 that must be met]
- [Condition 2 that must be met]
**Rationale**: [Explanation of the recommendation]
## Action Items
| # | Action | Owner | Deadline |
|---|--------|-------|----------|
```
---
## Phase 3b: Producer Risk Assessment
**Review mode check** — apply before spawning PR-MILESTONE:
- `solo` → skip. Note: "PR-MILESTONE skipped — Solo mode." Present the Go/No-Go section without a producer verdict.
- `lean` → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-MILESTONE skipped — Lean mode." Present the Go/No-Go section without a producer verdict.
- `full` → spawn as normal.
Before generating the Go/No-Go recommendation, spawn `producer` via Task using gate **PR-MILESTONE** (`.claude/docs/director-gates.md`).
Pass: milestone name and target date, current completion percentage, blocked story count, velocity data from sprint reports (if available), list of cut candidates.
Present the producer's assessment inline within the Go/No-Go section. The producer's verdict (ON TRACK / AT RISK / OFF TRACK) informs the overall recommendation.
If OFF TRACK, use `AskUserQuestion` before generating the recommendation:
- Prompt: "Producer verdict: OFF TRACK. The milestone is in jeopardy. This review will recommend NO-GO. How do you want to proceed?"
- Options:
- `[A] Accept NO-GO — generate the full review with that recommendation`
- `[B] Override to CONDITIONAL GO — I'll document the accepted risks myself`
- `[C] Stop — I want to address blockers before generating the review`
If AT RISK, use `AskUserQuestion`:
- Prompt: "Producer verdict: AT RISK. Milestone may slip. How should the Go/No-Go section be framed?"
- Options:
- `[A] CONDITIONAL GO — include producer's conditions in the review`
- `[B] NO-GO — conditions cannot be met in time`
- `[C] GO — I accept the risk and want to proceed`
Do not issue a GO against an OFF TRACK verdict unless the user explicitly selects [B] above.
---
## Phase 4: Save Review
Present the review to the user.
Ask: "May I write this to `production/milestones/[milestone-name]-review.md`?"
If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — milestone review saved.
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
---
## Phase 5: Next Steps
- Run `/gate-check` for a formal phase gate verdict if this milestone marks a development phase boundary.
- Run `/sprint-plan` to adjust the next sprint based on the scope recommendations above.