mirror of https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00

Files

Donchitos ad540fe75d Game Studio Agent Architecture — complete setup (Phases 1-7)

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>

2026-02-13 21:04:24 +11:00

2.8 KiB

Raw Blame History

ADR-[NNNN]: [Title]

Status

[Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXXX]

Date

[YYYY-MM-DD]

Decision Makers

[Who was involved in this decision]

Context

Problem Statement

[What problem are we solving? Why must this decision be made now? What is the cost of not deciding?]

Current State

[How does the system work today? What is wrong with the current approach?]

Constraints

[Technical constraints -- engine limitations, platform requirements]
[Timeline constraints -- deadline pressures, dependencies]
[Resource constraints -- team size, expertise available]
[Compatibility requirements -- must work with existing systems]

Requirements

[Functional requirement 1]
[Functional requirement 2]
[Performance requirement -- specific, measurable]
[Scalability requirement]

Decision

[The specific technical decision, described in enough detail for someone to implement it without further clarification.]

Architecture

[ASCII diagram showing the system architecture this decision creates.
Show components, data flow direction, and key interfaces.]

Key Interfaces

[Pseudocode or language-specific interface definitions that this decision
creates. These become the contracts that implementers must respect.]

Implementation Guidelines

[Specific guidance for the programmer implementing this decision.]

Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1: [Name]

Description: [How this approach would work]
Pros: [What is good about this approach]
Cons: [What is bad about this approach]
Estimated Effort: [Relative effort compared to chosen approach]
Rejection Reason: [Why this was not chosen]

Alternative 2: [Name]

[Same structure as above]

Consequences

Positive

[Good outcomes of this decision]

Negative

[Trade-offs and costs we are accepting]

Neutral

[Changes that are neither good nor bad, just different]

Risks

Risk	Probability	Impact	Mitigation

Performance Implications

Metric	Before	Expected After	Budget
CPU (frame time)	[X]ms	[Y]ms	[Z]ms
Memory	[X]MB	[Y]MB	[Z]MB
Load Time	[X]s	[Y]s	[Z]s
Network (if applicable)	[X]KB/s	[Y]KB/s	[Z]KB/s

Migration Plan

[If this changes existing systems, the step-by-step plan to migrate.]

[Step 1 -- what changes, what breaks, how to verify]
[Step 2]
[Step 3]

Rollback plan: [How to revert if this decision proves wrong]

Validation Criteria

[How we will know this decision was correct after implementation.]

[Measurable criterion 1]
[Measurable criterion 2]
[Performance criterion]

[Link to related ADRs]
[Link to related design documents]
[Link to relevant code files]

2.8 KiB Raw Blame History