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

10 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model
name description argument-hint user-invocable allowed-tools model
quick-design Lightweight design spec for small changes — tuning adjustments, minor mechanics, balance tweaks. Skips full GDD authoring when a system GDD already exists or the change is too small to warrant one. Produces a Quick Design Spec that embeds directly into story files. [brief description of the change] true Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, AskUserQuestion sonnet

Quick Design

This is the lightweight design path for changes that don't need a full GDD. Full GDD authoring via /design-system is the heavyweight path. Use this skill for work under approximately 4 hours of implementation — tuning adjustments, minor behavioral tweaks, small additions to existing systems, or standalone features too small to warrant a full document.

Output: design/quick-specs/[name]-[date].md

When to run: Anytime a change is too small for /design-system but too meaningful to implement without a written rationale.


1. Classify the Change

First, read the argument and determine which category this change falls into:

  • Tuning — changing numbers or balance values in an existing system with no behavioral change (most minimal path). Example: "increase jump height from 5 to 6 units", "reduce enemy patrol speed by 10%".
  • Tweak — a small behavioral change to an existing system that introduces no new states, branches, or systems. Example: "make dash invincible on frame 1", "allow combo to cancel into roll".
  • Addition — adding a small mechanic to an existing system that may introduce 1-2 new states or interactions. Example: "add a parry window to the block mechanic", "add a charge variant to the basic attack".
  • New Small System — a standalone feature small enough that it has no existing GDD and is under approximately one week of implementation work. Example: "achievement popup system", "simple day/night visual cycle".

If the change does NOT fit these categories — it introduces a new system with significant cross-system dependencies, requires more than one week of implementation, or fundamentally alters an existing system's core rules — stop and redirect to /design-system instead.

If there is no argument, ask the user to describe the change (plain text prompt), then classify it using the criteria above.

Present the inferred classification using AskUserQuestion:

  • Prompt: "I've classified this as [inferred type] — [brief reason]. Is that correct?"
  • Options:
    • [A] Yes — [inferred type] is correct
    • [B] Tuning — changing numbers or balance values only
    • [C] Tweak — small behavioral change to an existing system
    • [D] Addition — adding a small mechanic to an existing system
    • [E] New Small System — standalone feature, under one week of work
    • [F] This is too large — redirect me to /design-system

If [F]: stop. Verdict: REDIRECTED — use /design-system for this change. Otherwise: proceed with the selected type.


2. Context Scan

Before drafting anything, read the relevant context:

  • Search design/gdd/ for the GDD most relevant to this change. Read the sections that this change would affect.
  • Check whether design/gdd/systems-index.md exists. If it does, read it to understand where this system sits in the dependency graph and what tier it belongs to. If it does not exist, note "No systems index found — skipping dependency tier check." and continue.
  • Check design/quick-specs/ for any prior quick specs that touched this system — avoid contradicting them.
  • If this is a Tuning change, also check assets/data/ for the data file that holds the relevant values.

Report what was found: "Found GDD at [path]. Relevant section: [section name]. No conflicting quick specs found." (or note any conflicts found.)


3. Draft the Quick Design Spec

Use the appropriate spec format for the change category.

For Tuning changes

Produce a single table:

# Quick Design Spec: [Title]

**Type**: Tuning
**System**: [System name]
**GDD Reference**: `design/gdd/[filename].md` — Tuning Knobs section
**Date**: [today]

## Change

| Parameter | Old Value | New Value | Rationale |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| [param]   | [old]     | [new]     | [why]     |

## Tuning Knob Mapping

Maps to GDD Tuning Knob: [knob name and its documented range].
New value is [within / at the edge of / outside] the documented range.
[If outside: explain why the range should be extended.]

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] [Parameter] reads [new value] from `assets/data/[file]`
- [ ] Behavior difference is observable in [specific context]
- [ ] No regression in [related behavior]

For Tweak and Addition changes

# Quick Design Spec: [Title]

**Type**: [Tweak / Addition]
**System**: [System name]
**GDD Reference**: `design/gdd/[filename].md`
**Date**: [today]

## Change Summary

[1-2 sentences describing what changes and why.]

## Motivation

[Why is this change needed? What player experience problem does it solve?
Reference the relevant MDA aesthetic or player feedback if applicable.]

## Design Delta

Current GDD says (quoting `design/gdd/[filename].md`, [section]):

> [exact quote of the relevant rule or description]

This spec changes that to:

[New rule or description, written with the same precision as a GDD Detailed
Rules section. A programmer should be able to implement from this text alone.]

## New Rules / Values

[Full unambiguous statement of the replacement content. If this introduces
new states, list them. If it introduces new parameters, define their ranges.]

## Affected Systems

| System | Impact | Action Required |
|--------|--------|-----------------|
| [system] | [how it is affected] | [update GDD / update data file / no action] |

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] [Specific, testable criterion 1]
- [ ] [Specific, testable criterion 2]
- [ ] [Specific, testable criterion 3]
- [ ] No regression: [the original behavior this must not break]

## GDD Update Required?

[Yes / No]
[If yes: which file, which section, and what the update should say.]

For New Small System changes

Use a trimmed GDD structure. Include only the sections that are directly necessary — skip Player Fantasy, full Formulas, and Edge Cases unless the system specifically requires them.

# Quick Design Spec: [Title]

**Type**: New Small System
**Scope**: [1-2 sentence description of what this system does and doesn't do]
**Date**: [today]
**Estimated Implementation**: [hours]

## Overview

[One paragraph a new team member could understand. What does this system do,
when does it activate, and what does it produce?]

## Core Rules

[Unambiguous rules for the system. Use numbered lists for sequential behavior
and bullet lists for conditions. Be precise enough that a programmer can
implement without asking questions.]

## Tuning Knobs

| Knob | Default | Range | Category | Rationale |
|------|---------|-------|----------|-----------|
| [name] | [value] | [minmax] | [feel/curve/gate] | [why this default] |

All values must live in `assets/data/[appropriate-file].json`, not hardcoded.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] [Functional criterion: does the right thing]
- [ ] [Functional criterion: handles the edge case]
- [ ] [Experiential criterion: feels right — what a playtest validates]
- [ ] [Regression criterion: does not break adjacent system]

## Systems Index

This system is not currently in `design/gdd/systems-index.md`.
[If it should be added: suggest which layer and priority tier.]
[If it is too small to track: state "This system is below systems-index
tracking threshold — quick spec is sufficient."]

4. Approval and Filing

Present the draft to the user in full. Then use AskUserQuestion:

  • Prompt: "Here's the Quick Design Spec draft. How do you want to proceed?"
  • Options:
    • [A] Approve — write it as shown
    • [B] Revise — I'll describe what to change
    • [C] This grew too large — redirect to /design-system instead

If [B]: collect the requested changes, revise the draft, and re-present this widget. If [C]: stop. Verdict: REDIRECTED — use /design-system for this change.

If [A]: ask "May I write this Quick Design Spec to design/quick-specs/[kebab-case-title]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md?"

Use today's date in the filename. The title should be a kebab-case description of the change (e.g., jump-height-tuning-2026-03-10, parry-window-addition-2026-03-10).

If yes, create the design/quick-specs/ directory if it does not exist, then write the file.

If a GDD update is required (flagged in the spec), ask separately after writing the quick spec:

"This spec modifies rules in [System Name]. May I update design/gdd/[filename].md — specifically the [section name] section?"

Show the exact text that would be changed (old vs. new) before asking. Do not make GDD edits without explicit approval.


5. Handoff

After writing the file, output:

Quick Design Spec written to: design/quick-specs/[filename].md
Type: [Tuning / Tweak / Addition / New Small System]
System: [system name]
GDD update: [Required — pending approval / Applied / Not required]

Next step: This spec is ready for `/story-readiness` validation before
implementation. Reference this spec in the story's GDD Reference field.

Pipeline Notes

Verdict: COMPLETE — quick design spec written and ready for implementation.

Quick Design Specs bypass /design-review and /review-all-gdds by design. They are for small, low-risk, well-scoped changes where the cost of the full review pipeline exceeds the risk of the change itself.

Redirect to the full pipeline if any of the following are true:

  • The change adds a new system that belongs in the systems index
  • The change significantly alters cross-system behavior or a system's contracts with other systems
  • The change introduces new player-facing mechanics that affect the game's MDA aesthetic balance
  • Implementation is likely to exceed one week of work

In those cases: "This change has grown beyond quick-spec scope. I recommend using /design-system to author a full GDD for this."


  • Run /story-readiness [story-path] to validate the story before implementation begins — reference this spec in the story's GDD Reference field
  • Run /dev-story [story-path] to implement once the story passes readiness checks
  • If the change is larger than expected, run /design-system [system-name] to author a full GDD instead