* 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>
10 KiB
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.mdexists. 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] | [min–max] | [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."
Recommended Next Steps
- 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