mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 04:51:46 +00:00
14593802fe
- Add new /team-live-ops skill for post-launch content planning orchestration - Expand setup-engine, code-review, create-epics-stories, prototype with additional context - Enrich team-* skills (audio, combat, level, narrative, polish, release, ui) with new phases/agents - Update architecture-decision and architecture-review with dependency ordering improvements - Minor additions to balance-check, hotfix, localize, patch-notes, perf-profile - Populate technical-preferences.md with structured configuration sections Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
134 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
134 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: code-review
|
|
description: "Performs an architectural and quality code review on a specified file or set of files. Checks for coding standard compliance, architectural pattern adherence, SOLID principles, testability, and performance concerns."
|
|
argument-hint: "[path-to-file-or-directory]"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Task
|
|
context: fork
|
|
agent: lead-programmer
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
When this skill is invoked:
|
|
|
|
1. **Read the target file(s)** in full.
|
|
|
|
2. **Read the CLAUDE.md** for project coding standards.
|
|
|
|
2.5. **Identify the active engine specialists** by reading `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md`, section `## Engine Specialists`. Note:
|
|
- The **Primary** specialist (used for architecture and broad engine concerns)
|
|
- The **Language/Code Specialist** (used when reviewing the project's primary language files)
|
|
- The **Shader Specialist** (used when reviewing shader files)
|
|
- The **UI Specialist** (used when reviewing UI code)
|
|
- If the section reads `[TO BE CONFIGURED]`, no engine is pinned — skip engine specialist steps below.
|
|
|
|
3. **ADR Compliance Check**:
|
|
|
|
a. Search for ADR references in: the story file associated with this work (if
|
|
provided), any commit message context, and header comments in the files being
|
|
reviewed. Look for patterns like `ADR-NNN`, `ADR-[name]`, or
|
|
`docs/architecture/ADR-`.
|
|
|
|
b. If no ADR references are found, note:
|
|
> "No ADR references found — skipping ADR compliance check."
|
|
Then proceed to step 4.
|
|
|
|
c. For each referenced ADR: read `docs/architecture/ADR-NNN-*.md` and extract
|
|
the **Decision** and **Consequences** sections.
|
|
|
|
d. Check the implementation against each ADR:
|
|
- What pattern/approach was chosen in the Decision?
|
|
- Are there alternatives explicitly rejected in the ADR?
|
|
- Are there required guardrails or constraints in the Consequences?
|
|
|
|
e. Classify any deviation found:
|
|
- **ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION** (BLOCKING): Implementation uses a pattern
|
|
explicitly rejected in the ADR (e.g., ADR rejected singletons for game
|
|
state, but the code uses a singleton).
|
|
- **ADR DRIFT** (WARNING): Implementation diverges meaningfully from the
|
|
chosen approach without using an explicitly forbidden pattern (e.g., ADR
|
|
chose event-based communication but code uses direct method calls).
|
|
- **MINOR DEVIATION** (INFO): Small difference from ADR guidance that does
|
|
not affect the overall architecture (e.g., slightly different naming from
|
|
the ADR's example code).
|
|
|
|
f. Include ADR compliance findings in the review output under
|
|
`### ADR Compliance` before the Standards Compliance section.
|
|
|
|
4. **Identify the system category** (engine, gameplay, AI, networking, UI, tools)
|
|
and apply category-specific standards.
|
|
|
|
5. **Evaluate against coding standards**:
|
|
- [ ] Public methods and classes have doc comments
|
|
- [ ] Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method
|
|
- [ ] No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations)
|
|
- [ ] Dependencies are injected (no static singletons for game state)
|
|
- [ ] Configuration values loaded from data files
|
|
- [ ] Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies)
|
|
|
|
6. **Check architectural compliance**:
|
|
- [ ] Correct dependency direction (engine <- gameplay, not reverse)
|
|
- [ ] No circular dependencies between modules
|
|
- [ ] Proper layer separation (UI does not own game state)
|
|
- [ ] Events/signals used for cross-system communication
|
|
- [ ] Consistent with established patterns in the codebase
|
|
|
|
7. **Check SOLID compliance**:
|
|
- [ ] Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change
|
|
- [ ] Open/Closed: Extendable without modification
|
|
- [ ] Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types
|
|
- [ ] Interface Segregation: No fat interfaces
|
|
- [ ] Dependency Inversion: Depends on abstractions, not concretions
|
|
|
|
8. **Check for common game development issues**:
|
|
- [ ] Frame-rate independence (delta time usage)
|
|
- [ ] No allocations in hot paths (update loops)
|
|
- [ ] Proper null/empty state handling
|
|
- [ ] Thread safety where required
|
|
- [ ] Resource cleanup (no leaks)
|
|
|
|
9. **Engine Specialist Review** — If an engine is configured (step 2.5), spawn engine specialists via Task in parallel with your own review above:
|
|
- Determine which specialist applies to each file being reviewed:
|
|
- Primary language files (`.gd`, `.cs`, `.cpp`) → Language/Code Specialist
|
|
- Shader files (`.gdshader`, `.hlsl`, shader graph) → Shader Specialist
|
|
- UI screen/widget code → UI Specialist
|
|
- Cross-cutting or unclear → Primary Specialist
|
|
- Spawn the relevant specialist(s) with: the file(s), the engine reference docs path (`docs/engine-reference/[engine]/`), and the task: "Review for engine-idiomatic patterns, deprecated or incorrect API usage, engine-specific performance concerns, and any patterns the engine's documentation recommends against."
|
|
- Also spawn the **Primary Specialist** for any file that touches engine architecture (scene structure, node hierarchy, component design, lifecycle hooks).
|
|
- Collect findings and include them in the review output under `### Engine Specialist Findings` (placed between `### Game-Specific Concerns` and `### Positive Observations`).
|
|
- If no engine is configured, omit the `### Engine Specialist Findings` section.
|
|
|
|
10. **Output the review** in this format:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
## Code Review: [File/System Name]
|
|
|
|
### Engine Specialist Findings: [N/A — no engine configured / CLEAN / ISSUES FOUND]
|
|
[Findings from engine specialist(s), or "No engine configured." if skipped]
|
|
|
|
### ADR Compliance: [NO ADRS FOUND / COMPLIANT / DRIFT / VIOLATION]
|
|
[List each ADR checked, result, and any deviations with severity]
|
|
|
|
### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing]
|
|
[List failures with line references]
|
|
|
|
### Architecture: [CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND]
|
|
[List specific architectural concerns]
|
|
|
|
### SOLID: [COMPLIANT / ISSUES FOUND]
|
|
[List specific violations]
|
|
|
|
### Game-Specific Concerns
|
|
[List game development specific issues]
|
|
|
|
### Positive Observations
|
|
[What is done well -- always include this section]
|
|
|
|
### Required Changes
|
|
[Must-fix items before approval — ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATIONs always appear here]
|
|
|
|
### Suggestions
|
|
[Nice-to-have improvements]
|
|
|
|
### Verdict: [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]
|
|
```
|