* 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>
7.5 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| team-combat | Orchestrate the combat team: coordinates game-designer, gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to design, implement, and validate a combat feature end-to-end. | [combat feature description] [--review full|lean|solo] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Task, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite | sonnet |
Argument check: If no combat feature description is provided, output:
"Usage:
/team-combat [combat feature description]— Provide a description of the combat feature to design and implement (e.g.,melee parry system,ranged weapon spread)." Then stop immediately without spawning any subagents or reading any files.
When this skill is invoked with a valid argument, orchestrate the combat team through a structured pipeline.
Decision Points: At each phase transition, use AskUserQuestion to present
the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
The user must approve before moving to the next phase.
Phase 0: Resolve Review Mode
- If
--review [mode]was passed as an argument, use that mode. - Else read
production/review-mode.txt— use whatever is written there. - Else default to
lean.
Modes:
full— spawn all director and lead gates as describedlean— skip director gates unless they are PHASE-GATE type (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE)solo— skip all director gate spawning entirely; run the skill without any agent gates
Store the resolved mode for use in all subsequent phases.
Team Composition
- game-designer — Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge cases
- gameplay-programmer — Implement the core gameplay code
- ai-programmer — Implement NPC/enemy AI behavior for the feature
- technical-artist — Create VFX, shader effects, and visual feedback
- sound-designer — Define audio events, impact sounds, and ambient combat audio
- engine specialist (primary) — Validate architecture and implementation patterns are idiomatic for the engine (read from
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.mdEngine Specialists section) - qa-tester — Write test cases and validate the implementation
How to Delegate
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
subagent_type: game-designer— Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge casessubagent_type: gameplay-programmer— Implement the core gameplay codesubagent_type: ai-programmer— Implement NPC/enemy AI behaviorsubagent_type: technical-artist— Create VFX, shader effects, visual feedbacksubagent_type: sound-designer— Define audio events, impact sounds, ambient audiosubagent_type: [primary engine specialist]— Engine idiom validation for architecture and implementationsubagent_type: qa-tester— Write test cases and validate implementation
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (design doc path, relevant code files, constraints). Launch independent agents in parallel where the pipeline allows it (e.g., Phase 3 agents can run simultaneously).
Pipeline
Phase 1: Design
Delegate to game-designer:
- Create or update the design document in
design/gdd/covering: mechanic overview, player fantasy, detailed rules, formulas with variable definitions, edge cases, dependencies, tuning knobs with safe ranges, and acceptance criteria - Output: completed design document
Phase 2: Architecture
Delegate to gameplay-programmer (with ai-programmer if AI is involved):
- Review the design document
- Design the code architecture: class structure, interfaces, data flow
- Identify integration points with existing systems
- Output: architecture sketch with file list and interface definitions
Then spawn the primary engine specialist to validate the proposed architecture:
- Is the class/node/component structure idiomatic for the pinned engine? (e.g., Godot node hierarchy, Unity MonoBehaviour vs DOTS, Unreal Actor/Component design)
- Are there engine-native systems that should be used instead of custom implementations?
- Any proposed APIs that are deprecated or changed in the pinned engine version?
- Output: engine architecture notes — incorporate into the architecture before Phase 3 begins
Use AskUserQuestion:
- Prompt: "Architecture sketch complete. Approve to proceed with parallel implementation."
- Options:
[A] Proceed — spawn implementation agents (gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer)[B] Revise the architecture first — I'll describe what needs to change[C] Stop here — I'll continue later
Only spawn implementation agents if user selects [A].
Phase 3: Implementation (parallel where possible)
Delegate in parallel:
- gameplay-programmer: Implement core combat mechanic code
- ai-programmer: Implement AI behaviors (if the feature involves NPC reactions)
- technical-artist: Create VFX and shader effects
- sound-designer: Define audio event list and mixing notes
Phase 4: Integration
- Wire together gameplay code, AI, VFX, and audio
- Ensure all tuning knobs are exposed and data-driven
- Verify the feature works with existing combat systems
Phase 5: Validation
Delegate to qa-tester:
- Write test cases from the acceptance criteria
- Test all edge cases documented in the design
- Verify performance impact is within budget
- File bug reports for any issues found
Phase 6: Sign-off
- Collect results from all team members
- Report feature status: COMPLETE / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED
- List any outstanding issues and their assigned owners
Error Recovery Protocol
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
- Surface immediately: Report "[AgentName]: BLOCKED — [reason]" to the user before continuing to dependent phases
- Assess dependencies: Check whether the blocked agent's output is required by subsequent phases. If yes, do not proceed past that dependency point without user input.
- Offer options via AskUserQuestion with choices:
- Skip this agent and note the gap in the final report
- Retry with narrower scope
- Stop here and resolve the blocker first
- Always produce a partial report — output whatever was completed. Never discard work because one agent blocked.
Common blockers:
- Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
- ADR status is Proposed → do not implement; run
/architecture-decisionfirst - Scope too large → split into two stories via
/create-stories - Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess
File Write Protocol
All file writes (design documents, implementation files, test cases) are delegated to sub-agents spawned via Task. Each sub-agent enforces the "May I write to [path]?" protocol. This orchestrator does not write files directly.
Output
A summary report covering: design completion status, implementation status per team member, test results, and any open issues.
Verdict: COMPLETE — combat feature designed, implemented, and validated. Verdict: BLOCKED — one or more phases could not complete; partial report produced with unresolved items listed.
Next Steps
- Run
/code-reviewon the implemented combat code before closing stories. - Run
/balance-checkto validate combat formulas and tuning values. - Run
/team-polishif VFX, audio, or performance polish is needed.