Files
Donchitos 984023ddac Release v1.0.0 — concept-prototype/vertical-slice split, workflow restructure, polish (#50)
* 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>
2026-05-13 20:15:08 +10:00

141 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
---
name: tech-debt
description: "Track, categorize, and prioritize technical debt across the codebase. Scans for debt indicators, maintains a debt register, and recommends repayment scheduling."
argument-hint: "[scan|add|prioritize|report]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, AskUserQuestion
model: sonnet
---
## Phase 1: Parse Subcommand
Determine the mode from the argument:
- `scan` — Scan the codebase for tech debt indicators
- `add` — Add a new tech debt entry manually
- `prioritize` — Re-prioritize the existing debt register
- `report` — Generate a summary report of current debt status
If no subcommand is provided, output usage and stop. Verdict: **FAIL** — missing required subcommand.
---
## Phase 2A: Scan Mode
Search the codebase for debt indicators:
- `TODO` comments (count and categorize)
- `FIXME` comments (these are bugs disguised as debt)
- `HACK` comments (workarounds that need proper solutions)
- `@deprecated` markers
- Duplicated code blocks (similar patterns in multiple files)
- Files over 500 lines (potential god objects)
- Functions over 50 lines (potential complexity)
Categorize each finding:
- **Architecture Debt**: Wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues
- **Code Quality Debt**: Duplication, complexity, naming, missing types
- **Test Debt**: Missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases
- **Documentation Debt**: Missing docs, outdated docs, undocumented APIs
- **Dependency Debt**: Outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts
- **Performance Debt**: Known slow paths, unoptimized queries, memory issues
Present the findings to the user.
Ask: "May I write these findings to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
If yes, update the register (append new entries, do not overwrite existing ones). Verdict: **COMPLETE** — scan findings written to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
---
## Phase 2B: Add Mode
Ask the user for the description, affected files, and impact if left unfixed (plain text prompts).
Then use `AskUserQuestion` to collect the **category**:
- Prompt: "What category does this tech debt belong to?"
- Options:
- `[A] Architecture Debt — wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues`
- `[B] Code Quality Debt — duplication, complexity, naming, missing types`
- `[C] Test Debt — missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases`
- `[D] Documentation Debt — missing/outdated docs, undocumented APIs`
- `[E] Dependency Debt — outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts`
- `[F] Performance Debt — known slow paths, memory issues, unoptimized queries`
Then use `AskUserQuestion` to collect the **estimated fix effort**:
- Prompt: "What is the estimated effort to fix this item?"
- Options:
- `[A] S — Small (under 1 day)`
- `[B] M — Medium (13 days)`
- `[C] L — Large (37 days)`
- `[D] XL — Extra Large (over 1 week)`
Present the complete new entry to the user.
Ask: "May I append this entry to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
If yes, append the entry. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — entry added to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
---
## Phase 2C: Prioritize Mode
Read the debt register at `docs/tech-debt-register.md`.
Score each item by: `(impact_if_unfixed × frequency_of_encounter) / fix_effort`
Re-sort the register by priority score and recommend which items to include in the next sprint.
Present the re-prioritized register to the user.
Ask: "May I write the re-prioritized register back to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
If yes, write the updated file. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — register re-prioritized and saved.
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
---
## Phase 2D: Report Mode
Read the debt register. Generate summary statistics:
- Total items by category
- Total estimated fix effort
- Items added vs resolved since last report
- Trending direction (growing / stable / shrinking)
Flag any items that have been in the register for more than 3 sprints.
Output the report to the user. This mode is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — debt report generated.
---
## Phase 3: Next Steps
- Run `/sprint-plan` to schedule high-priority debt items into the next sprint.
- Run `/tech-debt report` at the start of each sprint to track debt trends over time.
### Debt Register Format
```markdown
## Technical Debt Register
Last updated: [Date]
Total items: [N] | Estimated total effort: [T-shirt sizes summed]
| ID | Category | Description | Files | Effort | Impact | Priority | Added | Sprint |
|----|----------|-------------|-------|--------|--------|----------|-------|--------|
| TD-001 | [Cat] | [Description] | [files] | [S/M/L/XL] | [Low/Med/High/Critical] | [Score] | [Date] | [Sprint to fix or "Backlog"] |
```
### Rules
- Tech debt is not inherently bad — it is a tool. The register tracks conscious decisions.
- Every debt entry must explain WHY it was accepted (deadline, prototype, missing info)
- "Scan" should run at least once per sprint to catch new debt
- Items older than 3 sprints without action should either be fixed or consciously accepted with a documented reason