mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 04:51:46 +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>
141 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
141 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
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 (1–3 days)`
|
||
- `[C] L — Large (3–7 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
|