mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
392e3befec
- Add `memory: project` to 14 specialist agents for cross-session learning - Add `context: fork` + `agent:` to 6 analysis skills to preserve main context - Add `isolation: worktree` to prototyper agent for safe throwaway experiments - Add SubagentStop hook to complete agent audit trail (start + stop logging) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
83 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
83 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: design-review
|
|
description: "Reviews a game design document for completeness, internal consistency, implementability, and adherence to project design standards. Run this before handing a design document to programmers."
|
|
argument-hint: "[path-to-design-doc]"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
|
|
context: fork
|
|
agent: Explore
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
When this skill is invoked:
|
|
|
|
1. **Read the target design document** in full.
|
|
|
|
2. **Read the master CLAUDE.md** to understand project context and standards.
|
|
|
|
3. **Read related design documents** referenced or implied by the target doc
|
|
(check `design/gdd/` for related systems).
|
|
|
|
4. **Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist**:
|
|
- [ ] Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary)
|
|
- [ ] Has Player Fantasy section (intended feeling)
|
|
- [ ] Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics)
|
|
- [ ] Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables)
|
|
- [ ] Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled)
|
|
- [ ] Has Dependencies section (other systems listed)
|
|
- [ ] Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified)
|
|
- [ ] Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions)
|
|
|
|
5. **Check for internal consistency**:
|
|
- Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?
|
|
- Do edge cases contradict the main rules?
|
|
- Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)?
|
|
|
|
6. **Check for implementability**:
|
|
- Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing?
|
|
- Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing?
|
|
- Are performance implications considered?
|
|
|
|
7. **Check for cross-system consistency**:
|
|
- Does this conflict with any existing mechanic?
|
|
- Does this create unintended interactions with other systems?
|
|
- Is this consistent with the game's established tone and pillars?
|
|
|
|
8. **Output the review** in this format:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
## Design Review: [Document Title]
|
|
|
|
### Completeness: [X/8 sections present]
|
|
[List missing sections]
|
|
|
|
### Consistency Issues
|
|
[List any internal or cross-system contradictions]
|
|
|
|
### Implementability Concerns
|
|
[List any vague or unimplementable sections]
|
|
|
|
### Balance Concerns
|
|
[List any obvious balance risks]
|
|
|
|
### Recommendations
|
|
[Prioritized list of improvements]
|
|
|
|
### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
9. **Contextual next step recommendations**:
|
|
- If the document being reviewed is `game-concept.md` or `game-pillars.md`:
|
|
- Check if `design/gdd/systems-index.md` exists
|
|
- If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:
|
|
> "This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run `/map-systems`
|
|
> to break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities,
|
|
> then write per-system GDDs."
|
|
- If the document is an individual system GDD:
|
|
- Check if the systems index references this system
|
|
- If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for
|
|
this system to 'Approved'."
|
|
- If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update
|
|
the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'."
|
|
- Note: This skill is read-only. The user (or `/design-system`) must
|
|
perform the actual status update in the systems index.
|