* 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>
12 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| team-ui | Orchestrate the UI team through the full UX pipeline: from UX spec authoring through visual design, implementation, review, and polish. Integrates with /ux-design, /ux-review, and studio UX templates. | [UI feature description] [--review full|lean|solo] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Task, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite | sonnet |
When this skill is invoked, orchestrate the UI 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.
Director gate skip rule: Before spawning creative-director, art-director, or any other Tier 1/2 director for review (outside of PHASE-GATE triggers), apply the resolved mode: skip if solo mode; skip if lean mode and this is not a PHASE-GATE.
Team Composition
- ux-designer — User flows, wireframes, accessibility, input handling
- ui-programmer — UI framework, screens, widgets, data binding, implementation
- art-director — Visual style, layout polish, consistency with art bible
- engine UI specialist — Validates UI implementation patterns against engine-specific best practices (read from
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.mdEngine Specialists → UI Specialist) - accessibility-specialist — Audits accessibility compliance at Phase 4
Templates used by this pipeline:
ux-spec.md— Standard screen/flow UX specificationhud-design.md— HUD-specific UX specificationinteraction-pattern-library.md— Reusable interaction patternsaccessibility-requirements.md— Committed accessibility tier and requirements
How to Delegate
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
subagent_type: ux-designer— User flows, wireframes, accessibility, input handlingsubagent_type: ui-programmer— UI framework, screens, widgets, data bindingsubagent_type: art-director— Visual style, layout polish, art bible consistencysubagent_type: [UI engine specialist]— Engine-specific UI pattern validation (e.g., unity-ui-specialist, ue-umg-specialist, godot-specialist)subagent_type: accessibility-specialist— Accessibility compliance audit
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (feature requirements, existing UI patterns, platform targets). Launch independent agents in parallel where the pipeline allows it (e.g., Phase 4 review agents can run simultaneously).
Pipeline
Phase 1a: Context Gathering
Before designing anything, read and synthesize:
design/gdd/game-concept.md— platform targets and intended audiencedesign/player-journey.md— player's state and context when they reach this screen- All GDD UI Requirements sections relevant to this feature
design/ux/interaction-patterns.md— existing patterns to reuse (not reinvent)design/accessibility-requirements.md— committed accessibility tier (e.g., Basic, Enhanced, Full)
If design/ux/interaction-patterns.md does not exist, surface the gap immediately:
"interaction-patterns.md does not exist — no existing patterns to reuse."
Then use AskUserQuestion with options:
- (a) Run
/ux-design patternsfirst to establish the pattern library, then continue - (b) Proceed without the pattern library — ui-programmer will treat all patterns created as new and add each to a new
design/ux/interaction-patterns.mdat completion
Do NOT invent or assume patterns from the feature name or GDD alone. If the user chooses (b), explicitly instruct ui-programmer in Phase 3 to treat all patterns as new and document them in design/ux/interaction-patterns.md when implementation is complete. Note the pattern library status (created / absent / updated) in the final summary report.
Summarize the context in a brief for the ux-designer: what the player is doing, what they need, what constraints apply, and which existing patterns are relevant.
Phase 1b: UX Spec Authoring
Invoke /ux-design [feature name] skill OR delegate directly to ux-designer to produce design/ux/[feature-name].md following the ux-spec.md template.
If designing the HUD, use the hud-design.md template instead of ux-spec.md.
Notes on special cases:
- For HUD design specifically, invoke
/ux-designwithargument: hud(e.g.,/ux-design hud).- For the interaction pattern library, run
/ux-design patternsonce at project start and update it whenever new patterns are introduced during later phases.
Output: design/ux/[feature-name].md with all required spec sections filled.
Phase 1c: UX Review
After the spec is complete, invoke /ux-review design/ux/[feature-name].md.
Gate: Do not proceed to Phase 2 until the verdict is APPROVED. If the verdict is NEEDS REVISION, the ux-designer must address the flagged issues and re-run the review. The user may explicitly accept a NEEDS REVISION risk and proceed, but this must be a conscious decision — present the specific concerns via AskUserQuestion before asking whether to proceed.
Phase 2: Visual Design
Delegate to art-director:
- Review the full UX spec (flows, wireframes, interaction patterns, accessibility notes) — not just the wireframe images
- Apply visual treatment from the art bible: colors, typography, spacing, animation style
- Check that visual design preserves accessibility compliance: verify color contrast ratios, and confirm color is never the only indicator of state (shape, text, or icon must reinforce it)
- Specify all asset requirements needed from the art pipeline: icons at specified sizes, background textures, fonts, decorative elements — with precise dimensions and format requirements
- Ensure consistency with existing implemented UI screens
- Output: visual design spec with style notes and asset manifest
Phase 3: Implementation
Before implementation begins, spawn the engine UI specialist (from .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md Engine Specialists → UI Specialist) to review the UX spec and visual design spec for engine-specific implementation guidance:
- Which engine UI framework should be used for this screen? (e.g., UI Toolkit vs UGUI in Unity, Control nodes vs CanvasLayer in Godot, UMG vs CommonUI in Unreal)
- Any engine-specific gotchas for the proposed layout or interaction patterns?
- Recommended widget/node structure for the engine?
- Output: engine UI implementation notes to hand off to ui-programmer before they begin
If no engine is configured, skip this step.
Delegate to ui-programmer:
- Implement the UI following the UX spec and visual design spec
- Use patterns from
design/ux/interaction-patterns.md— do not reinvent patterns that are already specified. If a pattern almost fits but needs modification, note the deviation and flag it for ux-designer review. - UI NEVER owns or modifies game state — display only; emit events for all player actions
- All text through the localization system — no hardcoded player-facing strings
- Support both input methods (keyboard/mouse AND gamepad)
- Implement accessibility features per the committed tier in
design/accessibility-requirements.md - Wire up data binding to game state
- If any new interaction pattern is created during implementation (i.e., something not already in the pattern library), add it to
design/ux/interaction-patterns.mdbefore marking implementation complete - Output: implemented UI feature
Phase 4: Review (parallel)
Delegate in parallel:
- ux-designer: Verify implementation matches wireframes and interaction spec. Test keyboard-only and gamepad-only navigation. Check accessibility features function correctly.
- art-director: Verify visual consistency with art bible. Check at minimum and maximum supported resolutions.
- accessibility-specialist: Verify compliance against the committed accessibility tier documented in
design/accessibility-requirements.md. Flag any violations as blockers.
All three review streams must report before proceeding to Phase 5.
Phase 5: Polish
- Address all review feedback
- Verify animations are skippable and respect the player's motion reduction preferences
- Confirm UI sounds trigger through the audio event system (no direct audio calls)
- Test at all supported resolutions and aspect ratios
- Verify
design/ux/interaction-patterns.mdis up to date — if any new patterns were introduced during this feature's implementation, confirm they have been added to the library - Confirm all HUD elements respect the visual budget defined in
design/ux/hud.md(element count, screen region allocations, maximum opacity values)
Quick Reference — When to Use Which Skill
/ux-design— Author a new UX spec for a screen, flow, or HUD from scratch/ux-review— Validate a completed UX spec before implementation/team-ui [feature]— Full pipeline from concept through polish (calls/ux-designand/ux-reviewinternally)/quick-design— Small UI changes that don't need a full new UX spec
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 (UX specs, interaction pattern library updates, implementation files) are
delegated to sub-agents and sub-skills (/ux-design, ui-programmer). Each enforces the
"May I write to [path]?" protocol. This orchestrator does not write files directly.
Output
A summary report covering: UX spec status, UX review verdict, visual design status, implementation status, accessibility compliance, input method support, interaction pattern library update status, and any outstanding issues.
Verdict: COMPLETE — UI feature delivered through full pipeline (UX spec → visual → implementation → review → polish). Verdict: BLOCKED — pipeline halted; surface the blocker and its phase before stopping.
Next Steps
- Run
/ux-reviewon the final spec if not yet approved. - Run
/code-reviewon the UI implementation before closing stories. - Run
/team-polishif visual or audio polish pass is needed.