Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/review-all-gdds/references/5-report.md

/review-all-gdds — Phase 5: Output the Review Report

Part of /review-all-gdds. SKILL.md names when to read this file; the settings it resolved and the rules under its later headings still apply here.

Phase 5: Output the Review Report

In this file:

• The report template
• NOT ASSESSED and where it ranks

## Cross-GDD Review Report
Date: [date]
GDDs Reviewed: [N] of [M] present
Not read: [each GDD that could not be read or is present but empty, by file name — or "none"]
Systems Covered: [list]

---

### Consistency Issues

#### Blocking (must resolve before architecture begins)
🔴 [Issue title]
[What GDDs are involved, what the contradiction is, what needs to change]

#### Warnings (should resolve, but won't block)
⚠️  [Issue title]
[What GDDs are involved, what the concern is]

---

### Game Design Issues

#### Blocking
🔴 [Issue title]
[What the problem is, which GDDs are involved, design recommendation]

#### Warnings
⚠️  [Issue title]
[What the concern is, which GDDs are affected, recommendation]

---

### Cross-System Scenario Issues

Scenarios walked: [N]
[List scenario names]

#### Blockers
🔴 [Scenario name] — [Systems involved]
[Step where failure occurs, nature of the failure mode, what must be resolved]

#### Warnings
⚠️  [Scenario name] — [Systems involved]
[What the unintended outcome is, recommendation]

#### Info
ℹ️  [Scenario name] — [Systems involved]
[Minor ordering ambiguity or note]

---

### GDDs Flagged for Revision

| GDD | Reason | Type | Priority |
|-----|--------|------|----------|
| [system-a].md | Rule contradiction with [system-b].md | Consistency | Blocking |
| [system-b].md | Rule contradiction with [system-a].md | Consistency | Blocking |
| [system-c].md | Stale reference to nonexistent mechanic | Consistency | Blocking |
| [system-d].md | No pillar alignment | Design Theory | Warning |

---

### Verdict: [PASS / NOT ASSESSED / CONCERNS / FAIL]

PASS: No blocking issues and no warnings.
NOT ASSESSED: One or more review phases could not run — named below.
CONCERNS: Warnings present that should be resolved, but nothing blocking.
FAIL: One or more blocking issues must be resolved before architecture begins.

### If NOT ASSESSED — what could not be reviewed, and why:
[Name each phase that did not run and the input it needed, and each GDD that could not be read or is present but empty, by file name]

### If FAIL — required actions before re-running:
[Specific list of what must change in which GDD]

NOT ASSESSED — a cross-review is only as wide as what it could read. Rank: above PASS, below CONCERNS and FAIL. This skill's whole value is comparing systems against each other, so it is unusually easy for it to look thorough while covering a fraction of the surface. Emit it when any of:

• Fewer than two GDDs were readable. Contradiction-hunting across one document is not a cross-review; a clean result there means only that nothing was compared. This is the single most important trigger in this skill.
• A whole review phase did not run — consistency, design theory, economy, pillar drift. A parallel phase that returned nothing has to be distinguished from one that returned no findings; if a spawned agent produced no report, that phase is NOT ASSESSED, not clean — an agent can return a fluent sentence, write nothing, and consume a phase.
• The design pillars are undefined, so pillar-drift has no reference to drift from — the same shape as an accessibility gate with no committed tier.
• A GDD is present but empty (headings only, or all placeholders), or could not be read. Present is not the same as reviewable, and a stub contradicts nothing.

Report the covered set explicitly either way: GDDs reviewed: [N] of [M] present ([M] counts the system GDDs present — the Phase 1c set, not game-concept.md, game-pillars.md, systems-index.md or an earlier gdd-cross-review-*.md), and the Not read: line naming every GDD that could not be read or is present but empty, whatever the verdict — a FAIL found in the GDDs that were read does not make the unread ones reviewed. A cross-review that silently skipped half the systems is indistinguishable from one that found them consistent.

---