* 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>
10 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model, agent
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | model | agent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ux-review | Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps. | [file-path or 'all' or 'hud' or 'patterns'] | true | Read, Glob, Grep | sonnet | ux-designer |
Overview
Validates UX design documents before they enter the implementation pipeline.
Acts as the quality gate between UX Design and Visual Design/Implementation in
the /team-ui pipeline.
Run this skill:
- After completing a UX spec with
/ux-design - Before handing off to
ui-programmerorart-director - Before the Pre-Production to Production gate check (which requires key screens to have reviewed UX specs)
- After major revisions to a UX spec
Verdict levels:
- APPROVED — spec is complete, consistent, and implementation-ready
- NEEDS REVISION — specific gaps found; fix before handoff but not a full redesign
- MAJOR REVISION NEEDED — fundamental issues with scope, player need, or completeness; needs significant rework
Phase 1: Parse Arguments
- Specific file path (e.g.,
/ux-review design/ux/inventory.md): validate that one document all: find all files indesign/ux/and validate eachhud: validatedesign/ux/hud.mdspecificallypatterns: validatedesign/ux/interaction-patterns.mdspecifically- No argument: ask the user which spec to validate
For all, output a summary table first (file | verdict | primary issue) then
full detail for each.
Phase 2: Load Cross-Reference Context
Before validating any spec, load:
- Input & Platform config: Read
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.mdand extract## Input & Platform. This is the authoritative source for which input methods the game supports — use it to drive the Input Method Coverage checks in Phase 3A, not the spec's own header. If unconfigured, fall back to the spec header. - The accessibility tier committed to in
design/accessibility-requirements.md(if it exists) - The interaction pattern library at
design/ux/interaction-patterns.md(if it exists) - The GDDs referenced in the spec's header (read their UI Requirements sections)
- The player journey map at
design/player-journey.md(if it exists) for context-arrival validation
Phase 3A: UX Spec Validation Checklist
Run all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.
Completeness (required sections)
- Document header present with Status, Author, Platform Target
- Purpose & Player Need — has a player-perspective need statement (not developer-perspective)
- Player Context on Arrival — describes player's state and prior activity
- Navigation Position — shows where screen sits in hierarchy
- Entry & Exit Points — all entry sources and exit destinations documented
- Layout Specification — zones defined, component inventory table present
- States & Variants — at minimum: loading, empty/populated, and error states documented
- Interaction Map — covers all target input methods (check platform target in header)
- Data Requirements — every displayed data element has a source system and owner
- Events Fired — every player action has a corresponding event or null explanation
- Transitions & Animations — at least enter/exit transitions specified
- Accessibility Requirements — screen-level requirements present
- Localization Considerations — max character counts for text elements
- Acceptance Criteria — at least 5 specific testable criteria
Quality Checks
Player Need Clarity
- Purpose is written from player perspective, not system/developer perspective
- Player goal on arrival is unambiguous ("The player arrives wanting to ___")
- The player context on arrival is specific (not just "they opened the inventory")
Completeness of States
- Error state is documented (not just happy path)
- Empty state is documented (no data scenario)
- Loading state is documented if the screen fetches async data
- Any state with a timer or auto-dismiss is documented with duration
Input Method Coverage
- If platform includes PC: keyboard-only navigation is fully specified
- If platform includes console/gamepad: d-pad navigation and face button mapping documented
- No interaction requires mouse-like precision on gamepad
- Focus order is defined (Tab order for keyboard, d-pad order for gamepad)
Data Architecture
- No data element has "UI" listed as the owner (UI must not own game state)
- Update frequency is specified for all real-time data (not just "realtime" — what triggers update?)
- Null handling is specified for all data elements (what shows when data is unavailable?)
Accessibility
- Accessibility tier from
accessibility-requirements.mdis matched or exceeded - If Basic tier: no color-only information indicators
- If Standard tier+: focus order documented, text contrast ratios specified
- If Comprehensive tier+: screen reader announcements for key state changes
- Colorblind check: any color-coded elements have non-color alternatives
GDD Alignment
- Every GDD UI Requirement referenced in the header is addressed in this spec
- No UI element displays or modifies game state without a corresponding GDD requirement
- No GDD UI Requirement is missing from this spec (cross-check the referenced GDD sections)
Pattern Library Consistency
- All interactive components reference the pattern library (or note they are new patterns)
- No pattern behavior is re-specified from scratch if it already exists in the pattern library
- Any new patterns invented in this spec are flagged for addition to the pattern library
Localization
- Character limit warnings present for all text-heavy elements
- Any layout-critical text has been flagged for 40% expansion accommodation
Acceptance Criteria Quality
- Criteria are specific enough for a QA tester who hasn't seen the design docs
- Performance criterion present (screen opens within Xms)
- Resolution criterion present
- No criterion requires reading another document to evaluate
Phase 3B: HUD Validation Checklist
Run all checks against a hud-design.md-based document.
Completeness
- HUD Philosophy defined
- Information Architecture table covers ALL systems with UI Requirements in GDDs
- Layout Zones defined with safe zone margins for all target platforms
- Every HUD element has a full specification (zone, visibility trigger, data source, priority)
- HUD States by Gameplay Context covers at minimum: exploration, combat, dialogue/cutscene, paused
- Visual Budget defined (max simultaneous elements, max screen %)
- Platform Adaptation covers all target platforms
- Tuning Knobs present for player-adjustable elements
Quality Checks
- No HUD element covers the center play area without a visibility rule to hide it
- Every information item that exists in any GDD is either in the HUD or explicitly categorized as "hidden/demand"
- All color-coded HUD elements have colorblind variants
- HUD elements in the Feedback & Notification section have queue/priority behavior defined
- Visual Budget compliance: total simultaneous elements is within budget
GDD Alignment
- All systems in
design/gdd/systems-index.mdwith UI category have representation in HUD (or justified absence)
Phase 3C: Pattern Library Validation Checklist
- Pattern catalog index is current (matches actual patterns in document)
- All standard control patterns are specified: button variants, toggle, slider, dropdown, list, grid, modal, dialog, toast, tooltip, progress bar, input field, tab bar, scroll
- All game-specific patterns needed by current UX specs are present
- Each pattern has: When to Use, When NOT to Use, full state specification, accessibility spec, implementation notes
- Animation Standards table present
- Sound Standards table present
- No conflicting behaviors between patterns (e.g., "Back" behavior consistent across all navigation patterns)
Phase 4: Output the Verdict
## UX Review: [Document Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: ux-review skill
**Document**: [file path]
**Platform Target**: [from header]
**Accessibility Tier**: [from header or accessibility-requirements.md]
### Completeness: [X/Y sections present]
- [x] Purpose & Player Need
- [ ] States & Variants — MISSING: error state not documented
### Quality Issues: [N found]
1. **[Issue title]** [BLOCKING / ADVISORY]
- What's wrong: [specific description]
- Where: [section name]
- Fix: [specific action to take]
### GDD Alignment: [ALIGNED / GAPS FOUND]
- GDD [name] UI Requirements — [X/Y requirements covered]
- Missing: [list any uncovered GDD requirements]
### Accessibility: [COMPLIANT / GAPS / NON-COMPLIANT]
- Target tier: [tier]
- [list specific accessibility findings]
### Pattern Library: [CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENCIES FOUND]
- [findings]
### Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED
**Blocking issues**: [N] — must be resolved before implementation
**Advisory issues**: [N] — recommended but not blocking
[For APPROVED]: This spec is ready for handoff to `/team-ui` Phase 2
(Visual Design).
[For NEEDS REVISION]: Address the [N] blocking issues above, then re-run
`/ux-review`.
[For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]: The spec has fundamental gaps in [areas].
Recommend returning to `/ux-design` to rework [sections].
Phase 5: Collaborative Protocol
This skill is READ-ONLY — it never edits or writes files. It reports findings only.
After delivering the verdict:
- For APPROVED: suggest running
/team-uito begin implementation coordination - For NEEDS REVISION: offer to help fix specific gaps ("Would you like me to help draft the missing error state?") — but do not auto-fix; wait for user instruction
- For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest returning to
/ux-designwith the specific sections to rework
Never block the user from proceeding — the verdict is advisory. Document risks, present findings, let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns. A user who chooses to proceed with a NEEDS REVISION spec takes on the documented risk.