mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
* 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>
195 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
195 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: team-level
|
|
description: "Orchestrate level design team: level-designer + narrative-director + world-builder + art-director + systems-designer + qa-tester for complete area/level creation."
|
|
argument-hint: "[level name or area to design] [--review full|lean|solo]"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Task, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite
|
|
model: sonnet
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
When this skill is invoked:
|
|
|
|
**Decision Points:** At each step 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 step.
|
|
|
|
## Phase 0: Resolve Review Mode
|
|
|
|
1. If `--review [mode]` was passed as an argument, use that mode.
|
|
2. Else read `production/review-mode.txt` — use whatever is written there.
|
|
3. Else default to `lean`.
|
|
|
|
Modes:
|
|
- `full` — spawn all director and lead gates as described
|
|
- `lean` — 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.
|
|
|
|
1. **Read the argument** for the target level or area (e.g., `tutorial`,
|
|
`forest dungeon`, `hub town`, `final boss arena`).
|
|
|
|
2. **Gather context**:
|
|
- Read the game concept at `design/gdd/game-concept.md`
|
|
- Read game pillars at `design/gdd/game-pillars.md`
|
|
- Read existing level docs in `design/levels/`
|
|
- Read relevant narrative docs in `design/narrative/`
|
|
- Read world-building docs for the area's region/faction
|
|
|
|
## How to Delegate
|
|
|
|
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
|
|
- `subagent_type: narrative-director` — Narrative purpose, characters, emotional arc
|
|
- `subagent_type: world-builder` — Lore context, environmental storytelling, world rules
|
|
- `subagent_type: level-designer` — Spatial layout, pacing, encounters, navigation
|
|
- `subagent_type: systems-designer` — Enemy compositions, loot tables, difficulty balance
|
|
- `subagent_type: art-director` — Visual theme, color palette, lighting, asset requirements
|
|
- `subagent_type: accessibility-specialist` — Navigation clarity, colorblind safety, cognitive load
|
|
- `subagent_type: qa-tester` — Test cases, boundary testing, playtest checklist
|
|
|
|
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (game concept, pillars, existing level docs, narrative docs).
|
|
|
|
3. **Orchestrate the level design team** in sequence:
|
|
|
|
### Step 1: Narrative + Visual Direction (narrative-director + world-builder + art-director, parallel)
|
|
|
|
Spawn all three agents simultaneously — issue all three Task calls before waiting for any result.
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `narrative-director` agent to:
|
|
- Define the narrative purpose of this area (what story beats happen here?)
|
|
- Identify key characters, dialogue triggers, and lore elements
|
|
- Specify emotional arc (how should the player feel entering, during, leaving?)
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `world-builder` agent to:
|
|
- Provide lore context for the area (history, faction presence, ecology)
|
|
- Define environmental storytelling opportunities
|
|
- Specify any world rules that affect gameplay in this area
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `art-director` agent to:
|
|
- Establish visual theme targets for this area — these are INPUTS to layout, not outputs of it
|
|
- Define the color temperature and lighting mood for this area (how does it differ from adjacent areas?)
|
|
- Specify shape language direction (angular fortress? organic cave? decayed grandeur?)
|
|
- Name the primary visual landmarks that will orient the player
|
|
- Read `design/art/art-bible.md` if it exists — anchor all direction in the established art bible
|
|
|
|
**The art-director's visual targets from Step 1 must be passed to the level-designer in Step 2** as explicit constraints. Layout decisions happen within the visual direction, not before it.
|
|
|
|
**Gate**: Use `AskUserQuestion` to present all three Step 1 outputs (narrative brief, lore foundation, visual direction targets) and confirm before proceeding to Step 2.
|
|
|
|
### Step 2: Layout and Encounter Design (level-designer)
|
|
Spawn the `level-designer` agent with the full Step 1 output as context:
|
|
- Narrative brief (from narrative-director)
|
|
- Lore foundation (from world-builder)
|
|
- **Visual direction targets (from art-director)** — layout must work within these targets, not contradict them
|
|
|
|
The level-designer should:
|
|
- Design the spatial layout (critical path, optional paths, secrets) — ensuring primary routes align with the visual landmark targets from Step 1
|
|
- Define pacing curve (tension peaks, rest areas, exploration zones) — coordinated with the emotional arc from narrative-director
|
|
- Place encounters with difficulty progression
|
|
- Design environmental puzzles or navigation challenges
|
|
- Define points of interest and landmarks for wayfinding — these must match the visual landmarks the art-director specified
|
|
- Specify entry/exit points and connections to adjacent areas
|
|
|
|
**Adjacent area dependency check**: After the layout is produced, check `design/levels/` for each adjacent area referenced by the level-designer. If any referenced area's `.md` file does not exist, surface the gap:
|
|
> "Level references [area-name] as an adjacent area but `design/levels/[area-name].md` does not exist."
|
|
|
|
Use `AskUserQuestion` with options:
|
|
- (a) Proceed with a placeholder reference — mark the connection as UNRESOLVED in the level doc and list it in the open cross-level dependencies section of the summary report
|
|
- (b) Pause and run `/team-level [area-name]` first to establish that area
|
|
|
|
Do NOT invent content for the missing adjacent area.
|
|
|
|
**Gate**: Use `AskUserQuestion` to present Step 2 layout (including any unresolved adjacent area dependencies) and confirm before proceeding to Step 3.
|
|
|
|
### Step 3: Systems Integration (systems-designer)
|
|
Spawn the `systems-designer` agent to:
|
|
- Specify enemy compositions and encounter formulas
|
|
- Define loot tables and reward placement
|
|
- Balance difficulty relative to expected player level/gear
|
|
- Design any area-specific mechanics or environmental hazards
|
|
- Specify resource distribution (health pickups, save points, shops)
|
|
|
|
**Gate**: Use `AskUserQuestion` to present Step 3 outputs and confirm before proceeding to Step 4.
|
|
|
|
### Step 4: Production Concepts + Accessibility (art-director + accessibility-specialist, parallel)
|
|
|
|
**Note**: The art-director's directional pass (visual theme, color targets, mood) happened in Step 1. This pass is location-specific production concepts — given the finalized layout, what does each specific space look like?
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `art-director` agent with the finalized layout from Step 2:
|
|
- Produce location-specific concept specs for key spaces (entrance, key encounter zones, landmarks, exits)
|
|
- Specify which art assets are unique to this area vs. shared from the global pool
|
|
- Define sight-line and lighting setups per key space (these are now layout-informed, not directional)
|
|
- Specify VFX needs that are specific to this area's layout (weather volumes, particles, atmospheric effects)
|
|
- Flag any locations where the layout creates visual direction conflicts with the Step 1 targets — surface these as production risks
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `accessibility-specialist` agent in parallel to:
|
|
- Review the level layout for navigation clarity (can players orient themselves without relying on color alone?)
|
|
- Check that critical path signposting uses shape/icon/sound cues in addition to color
|
|
- Review any puzzle mechanics for cognitive load — flag anything that requires holding more than 3 simultaneous states
|
|
- Check that key gameplay areas have sufficient contrast for colorblind players
|
|
- Output: accessibility concerns list with severity (BLOCKING / RECOMMENDED / NICE TO HAVE)
|
|
|
|
Wait for both agents to return before proceeding.
|
|
|
|
**Gate**: Use `AskUserQuestion` to present both Step 4 results. If the accessibility-specialist returned any BLOCKING concerns, highlight them prominently and offer:
|
|
- (a) Return to level-designer and art-director to redesign the flagged elements before Step 5
|
|
- (b) Document as a known accessibility gap and proceed to Step 5 with the concern explicitly logged in the final report
|
|
|
|
Do NOT proceed to Step 5 without the user acknowledging any BLOCKING accessibility concerns.
|
|
|
|
### Step 5: QA Planning (qa-tester)
|
|
Spawn the `qa-tester` agent to:
|
|
- Write test cases for the critical path
|
|
- Identify boundary and edge cases (sequence breaks, softlocks)
|
|
- Create a playtest checklist for the area
|
|
- Define acceptance criteria for level completion
|
|
|
|
4. **Compile the level design document** combining all team outputs into the
|
|
level design template format.
|
|
|
|
After all subagent outputs are collected, spawn `level-designer` via Task to compile and write the final document:
|
|
- Pass: all subagent outputs (verbatim), the level brief, game pillars, relevant GDD sections
|
|
- Ask level-designer to: compile into the level design document format, then request user approval before writing ("May I write the compiled level design to design/levels/[level-name].md?")
|
|
- The orchestrator does NOT call Write directly for the final document.
|
|
|
|
5. **Save to** `design/levels/[level-name].md` (handled by the level-designer subagent after user approval — see above).
|
|
|
|
6. **Output a summary** with: area overview, encounter count, estimated asset
|
|
list, narrative beats, any cross-team dependencies or open questions, open
|
|
cross-level dependencies (adjacent areas referenced but not yet designed, each
|
|
marked UNRESOLVED), and accessibility concerns with their resolution status.
|
|
|
|
## File Write Protocol
|
|
|
|
All file writes (level design docs, narrative docs, test checklists) 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.
|
|
|
|
Verdict: **COMPLETE** — level design document produced and all team outputs compiled.
|
|
Verdict: **BLOCKED** — one or more agents blocked; partial report produced with unresolved items listed.
|
|
|
|
## Next Steps
|
|
|
|
- Run `/design-review design/levels/[level-name].md` to validate the completed level design doc.
|
|
- Run `/dev-story` to implement level content once the design is approved.
|
|
- Run `/qa-plan` to generate a QA test plan for this level.
|
|
|
|
## Error Recovery Protocol
|
|
|
|
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
|
|
|
|
1. **Surface immediately**: Report "[AgentName]: BLOCKED — [reason]" to the user before continuing to dependent phases
|
|
2. **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.
|
|
3. **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
|
|
4. **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-decision` first
|
|
- Scope too large → split into two stories via `/create-stories`
|
|
- Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess
|