mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
48 coordinated Claude Code subagents for indie game development: - 3 leadership agents (creative-director, technical-director, producer) - 10 department leads (game-designer, lead-programmer, art-director, etc.) - 23 specialist agents (gameplay, engine, AI, networking, UI, tools, etc.) - 12 engine-specific agents (Godot, Unity, Unreal with sub-specialists) Infrastructure: - 34 skills (slash commands) for workflows, reviews, and team orchestration - 8 hooks for commit validation, asset checks, session management - 11 path-scoped rules enforcing domain-specific standards - 28 templates for design docs, reports, and collaborative protocols Key features: - User-driven collaboration protocol (Question → Options → Decision → Draft → Approval) - Engine version awareness with knowledge-gap detection (Godot 4.6 pinned) - Phase gate system for development milestone validation - CLAUDE.md kept under 80 lines with extracted doc imports Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
164 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
164 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: estimate
|
|
description: "Estimates task effort by analyzing complexity, dependencies, historical velocity, and risk factors. Produces a structured estimate with confidence levels."
|
|
argument-hint: "[task-description]"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
When this skill is invoked:
|
|
|
|
1. **Read the task description** from the argument. If the description is too
|
|
vague to estimate meaningfully, ask for clarification before proceeding.
|
|
|
|
2. **Read CLAUDE.md** for project context: tech stack, coding standards,
|
|
architectural patterns, and any estimation guidelines.
|
|
|
|
3. **Read relevant design documents** from `design/gdd/` if the task relates
|
|
to a documented feature or system.
|
|
|
|
4. **Scan the codebase** to understand the systems affected by this task:
|
|
- Identify files and modules that would need to change
|
|
- Assess the complexity of those files (size, dependency count, cyclomatic
|
|
complexity)
|
|
- Identify integration points with other systems
|
|
- Check for existing test coverage in the affected areas
|
|
|
|
5. **Read past sprint data** from `production/sprints/` if available:
|
|
- Look for similar completed tasks and their actual effort
|
|
- Calculate historical velocity (planned vs actual)
|
|
- Identify any estimation bias patterns (consistently over or under)
|
|
|
|
6. **Analyze the following factors**:
|
|
|
|
**Code Complexity**:
|
|
- Lines of code in affected files
|
|
- Number of dependencies and coupling level
|
|
- Whether this touches core/engine code vs leaf/feature code
|
|
- Whether existing patterns can be followed or new patterns are needed
|
|
|
|
**Scope**:
|
|
- Number of systems touched
|
|
- New code vs modification of existing code
|
|
- Amount of new test coverage required
|
|
- Data migration or configuration changes needed
|
|
|
|
**Risk**:
|
|
- New technology or unfamiliar libraries
|
|
- Unclear or ambiguous requirements
|
|
- Dependencies on unfinished work
|
|
- Cross-system integration complexity
|
|
- Performance sensitivity
|
|
|
|
7. **Generate the estimate**:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Task Estimate: [Task Name]
|
|
Generated: [Date]
|
|
|
|
### Task Description
|
|
[Restate the task clearly in 1-2 sentences]
|
|
|
|
### Complexity Assessment
|
|
|
|
| Factor | Assessment | Notes |
|
|
|--------|-----------|-------|
|
|
| Systems affected | [List] | [Core, gameplay, UI, etc.] |
|
|
| Files likely modified | [Count] | [Key files listed below] |
|
|
| New code vs modification | [Ratio, e.g., 70% new / 30% modification] | |
|
|
| Integration points | [Count] | [Which systems interact] |
|
|
| Test coverage needed | [Low / Medium / High] | [Unit, integration, manual] |
|
|
| Existing patterns available | [Yes / Partial / No] | [Can follow existing code or new ground] |
|
|
|
|
**Key files likely affected:**
|
|
- `[path/to/file1]` -- [what changes here]
|
|
- `[path/to/file2]` -- [what changes here]
|
|
- `[path/to/file3]` -- [what changes here]
|
|
|
|
### Effort Estimate
|
|
|
|
| Scenario | Days | Assumption |
|
|
|----------|------|------------|
|
|
| Optimistic | [X] | Everything goes right, no surprises, requirements are clear |
|
|
| Expected | [Y] | Normal pace, minor issues, one round of review feedback |
|
|
| Pessimistic | [Z] | Significant unknowns surface, blocked for a day, requirements change |
|
|
|
|
**Recommended budget: [Y days]**
|
|
|
|
[If historical data is available: "Based on [N] similar tasks that averaged
|
|
[X] days actual vs [Y] days estimated, a [correction factor] adjustment has
|
|
been applied."]
|
|
|
|
### Confidence: [High / Medium / Low]
|
|
|
|
**High** -- Clear requirements, familiar systems, follows existing patterns,
|
|
similar tasks completed before.
|
|
|
|
**Medium** -- Some unknowns, touches moderately complex systems, partial
|
|
precedent from previous work.
|
|
|
|
**Low** -- Significant unknowns, new technology, unclear requirements, or
|
|
cross-cutting concerns across many systems.
|
|
|
|
[Explain which factors drive the confidence level for this specific task.]
|
|
|
|
### Risk Factors
|
|
|
|
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|
|
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
|
|
| [Specific risk] | [High/Med/Low] | [Days added if realized] | [How to reduce] |
|
|
| [Another risk] | [Likelihood] | [Impact] | [Mitigation] |
|
|
|
|
### Dependencies
|
|
|
|
| Dependency | Status | Impact if Delayed |
|
|
|-----------|--------|-------------------|
|
|
| [What must be done first] | [Done / In Progress / Not Started] | [How it affects this task] |
|
|
|
|
### Suggested Breakdown
|
|
|
|
| # | Sub-task | Estimate | Notes |
|
|
|---|----------|----------|-------|
|
|
| 1 | [Research / spike] | [X days] | [If unknowns need investigation first] |
|
|
| 2 | [Core implementation] | [X days] | [The main work] |
|
|
| 3 | [Integration with system X] | [X days] | [Connecting to existing code] |
|
|
| 4 | [Testing and validation] | [X days] | [Writing tests, manual verification] |
|
|
| 5 | [Code review and iteration] | [X days] | [Review feedback, fixes] |
|
|
| | **Total** | **[Y days]** | |
|
|
|
|
### Historical Comparison
|
|
[If similar tasks exist in sprint history:]
|
|
|
|
| Similar Task | Estimated | Actual | Relevant Difference |
|
|
|-------------|-----------|--------|-------------------|
|
|
| [Past task 1] | [X days] | [Y days] | [What makes it similar/different] |
|
|
| [Past task 2] | [X days] | [Y days] | [What makes it similar/different] |
|
|
|
|
### Notes and Assumptions
|
|
- [Key assumption that affects the estimate]
|
|
- [Another assumption]
|
|
- [Any caveats about scope boundaries -- what is included vs excluded]
|
|
- [Recommendations: e.g., "Consider a spike first if requirement X is unclear"]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
8. **Output the estimate** to the user with a brief summary: recommended
|
|
budget, confidence level, and the single biggest risk factor.
|
|
|
|
### Guidelines
|
|
|
|
- Always give a range (optimistic / expected / pessimistic), never a single
|
|
number. Single-point estimates create false precision.
|
|
- The recommended budget should be the expected estimate, not the optimistic
|
|
one. Padding is not dishonest -- it is realistic.
|
|
- If confidence is Low, recommend a time-boxed spike or prototype before
|
|
committing to the full estimate.
|
|
- Be explicit about what is included and excluded. Scope ambiguity is the
|
|
most common source of estimation error.
|
|
- Round to half-day increments. Estimating in hours implies false precision
|
|
for tasks longer than a day.
|
|
- If the task is too large to estimate confidently (more than 10 days
|
|
expected), recommend breaking it into smaller tasks and estimating those
|
|
individually.
|
|
- Do not pad estimates silently. If risk exists, call it out explicitly in
|
|
the risk factors section so the team can decide how to handle it.
|