* 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>
4.6 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| skill-improve | Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewrites the skill, re-tests, and keeps or reverts based on score change. | [skill-name] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Bash | sonnet |
Skill Improve
Runs an improvement loop on a single skill: test → fix → retest → keep or revert.
Phase 1: Parse Argument
Read the skill name from the first argument. If missing, output usage and stop:
Usage: /skill-improve [skill-name]
Example: /skill-improve tech-debt
Verify .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md exists. If not, stop with:
"Skill '[name]' not found."
Phase 2: Baseline Test
Run /skill-test static [name] and record the baseline score:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific checks failed (Check 1–7)
Display to the user:
Static baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings
Failing: Check 4 (no ask-before-write), Check 5 (no handoff)
If baseline is 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, note it and proceed to Phase 2b.
Phase 2b: Category Baseline
Look up the skill's category: field in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.
If no category: field is found, display:
"Category: not yet assigned — skipping category checks."
and skip to Phase 3.
If category is found, run /skill-test category [name] and record the category baseline:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific category rubric metrics failed
Display to the user:
Category baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings ([category] rubric)
If BOTH static and category baselines are 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, stop: "This skill already passes all static and category checks. No improvements needed."
Phase 3: Diagnose
Read the full skill file at .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md.
For each failing or warning static check, identify the exact gap:
- Check 1 fail → which frontmatter field is missing
- Check 2 fail → how many phases found vs. minimum required
- Check 3 fail → no verdict keywords anywhere in the skill body
- Check 4 fail → Write or Edit in allowed-tools but no ask-before-write language
- Check 5 warn → no follow-up or next-step section at the end
- Check 6 warn →
context: forkset but fewer than 5 phases found - Check 7 warn → argument-hint is empty or doesn't match documented modes
For each failing or warning category check (if category was assigned in Phase 2b), identify the exact gap in the skill's text. For example:
- If G2 fails (gate mode, full directors not spawned): skill body never references all 4 PHASE-GATE director prompts
- If A2 fails (authoring, no per-section May-I-write): skill asks once at the end, not before each section write
- If T3 fails (team, BLOCKED not surfaced): skill doesn't halt dependent work on blocked agent
Show the full combined diagnosis to the user before proposing any changes.
Phase 4: Propose Fix
Write a targeted fix for each failure and warning. Show the proposed changes as clearly marked before/after blocks. Only change what is failing — do not rewrite sections that are passing.
Ask: "May I write this improved version to .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md?"
If the user says no, stop here.
Phase 5: Write and Retest
Record the current content of the skill file (for revert if needed).
Write the improved skill to .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md.
Re-run /skill-test static [name] and record the new static score.
If a category was assigned, also re-run /skill-test category [name] and record the new category score.
Display the comparison:
Static: Before [N] failures, [M] warnings → After [N'] failures, [M'] warnings
Category: Before [N] failures, [M] warnings → After [N'] failures, [M'] warnings (if applicable)
Combined change: improved / no change / worse
Phase 6: Verdict
Count the combined failure total: static FAILs + category FAILs + static WARNs + category WARNs.
If combined score improved (combined failure count is lower than baseline): Report: "Score improved. Changes kept." Show a summary of what was fixed in each dimension.
If combined score is the same or worse:
Report: "Combined score did not improve."
Show what changed and why it may not have helped.
Ask: "May I revert .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md using git checkout?"
If yes: run git checkout -- .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md
Phase 7: Next Steps
- Run
/skill-test static allto find the next skill with failures. - Run
/skill-improve [next-name]to continue the loop on another skill. - Run
/skill-test auditto see overall coverage progress.