mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 04:51:46 +00:00
6c041ac1be
New skill: /consistency-check — cross-GDD entity registry scanner New registries: design/registry/entities.yaml, docs/registry/architecture.yaml Skill fixes: no-arg guards, verdict keywords, AskUserQuestion gates on all team-* skills Agent fixes: genre-agnostic language in game-designer, systems-designer, economy-designer, live-ops-designer Docs: skill/template counts corrected, stale references cleaned up Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
90 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
90 lines
3.0 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
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Load Documents
|
|
|
|
Read the target design document in full. Read CLAUDE.md to understand project context and standards. Read related design documents referenced or implied by the target doc (check `design/gdd/` for related systems).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Completeness Check
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Consistency and Implementability
|
|
|
|
**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)?
|
|
|
|
**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?
|
|
|
|
**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?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Output Review
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
## 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]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This skill is read-only — no files are written.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 5: Next Steps
|
|
|
|
If the document being reviewed is `game-concept.md` or `game-pillars.md`:
|
|
- Check if `design/gdd/systems-index.md` exists. If not, recommend: "Run `/map-systems` to break the concept down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities, then write per-system GDDs."
|
|
|
|
If the document is an individual system GDD:
|
|
- If verdict is APPROVED: suggest updating the system's status to 'Approved' in the systems index.
|
|
- If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest updating the status to 'In Review'.
|
|
|
|
Next skill options:
|
|
- APPROVED → `/create-epics` or `/map-systems`
|
|
- NEEDS REVISION → revise the doc then re-run `/design-review`
|