Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/gate-check/SKILL.md

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, context, model

name	description	argument-hint	user-invocable	allowed-tools	context	model
gate-check	Validate readiness to advance between development phases. Produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict with specific blockers and required artifacts. Use when user says 'are we ready to move to X', 'can we advance to production', 'check if we can start the next phase', 'pass the gate'.	[target-phase: systems-design | technical-setup | pre-production | production | polish | release] [--review full|lean|solo]	true	Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Write	fork	opus

Phase Gate Validation

This skill validates whether the project is ready to advance to the next development phase. It checks for required artifacts, quality standards, and blockers.

Distinct from /project-stage-detect: That skill is diagnostic ("where are we?"). This skill is prescriptive ("are we ready to advance?" with a formal verdict).

Production Stages (7)

The project progresses through these stages:

1. Concept — Brainstorming, game concept document
2. Systems Design — Mapping systems, writing GDDs
3. Technical Setup — Engine config, architecture decisions
4. Pre-Production — Prototyping, vertical slice validation
5. Production — Feature development (Epic/Feature/Task tracking active)
6. Polish — Performance, playtesting, bug fixing
7. Release — Launch prep, certification

When a gate passes, write the new stage name to production/stage.txt (single line, e.g. Production). This updates the status line immediately.

---

1. Parse Arguments

Target phase: $ARGUMENTS[0] (blank = auto-detect current stage, then validate next transition)

Also extract --review [full|lean|solo] if present. Note: in solo mode, director spawns (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE) are skipped — gate-check becomes artifact-existence checks only. In lean mode, all three directors still run (phase gates are the purpose of lean mode).

• With argument: /gate-check production — validate readiness for that specific phase
• No argument: Auto-detect current stage using the same heuristics as /project-stage-detect, then validate the NEXT phase transition

---

2. Phase Gate Definitions

Gate: Concept → Systems Design

Required Artifacts:

• design/gdd/game-concept.md exists and has content
• Game pillars defined (in concept doc or design/gdd/game-pillars.md)

Quality Checks:

• Game concept has been reviewed (/design-review verdict not MAJOR REVISION NEEDED)
• Core loop is described and understood
• Target audience is identified

---

Gate: Systems Design → Technical Setup

Required Artifacts:

• Systems index exists at design/gdd/systems-index.md with at least MVP systems enumerated
• All MVP-tier GDDs exist in design/gdd/ and individually pass /design-review
• A cross-GDD review report exists in design/gdd/ (from /review-all-gdds)

Quality Checks:

• All MVP GDDs pass individual design review (8 required sections, no MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict)
• /review-all-gdds verdict is not FAIL (cross-GDD consistency and design theory checks pass)
• All cross-GDD consistency issues flagged by /review-all-gdds are resolved or explicitly accepted
• System dependencies are mapped in the systems index and are bidirectionally consistent
• MVP priority tier is defined
• No stale GDD references flagged (older GDDs updated to reflect decisions made in later GDDs)

---

Gate: Technical Setup → Pre-Production

Required Artifacts:

• Engine chosen (CLAUDE.md Technology Stack is not [CHOOSE])
• Technical preferences configured (.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md populated)
• At least 3 Architecture Decision Records in docs/architecture/ covering Foundation-layer systems (scene management, event architecture, save/load)
• Engine reference docs exist in docs/engine-reference/[engine]/
• Test framework initialized: tests/unit/ and tests/integration/ directories exist
• CI/CD test workflow exists at .github/workflows/tests.yml (or equivalent)
• At least one example test file exists to confirm the framework is functional
• Master architecture document exists at docs/architecture/architecture.md
• Architecture traceability index exists at docs/architecture/architecture-traceability.md
• /architecture-review has been run (a review report file exists in docs/architecture/)
• design/accessibility-requirements.md exists with accessibility tier committed
• design/ux/interaction-patterns.md exists (pattern library initialized, even if minimal)

Quality Checks:

• Architecture decisions cover core systems (rendering, input, state management)
• Technical preferences have naming conventions and performance budgets set
• Accessibility tier is defined and documented (even "Basic" is acceptable — undefined is not)
• At least one screen's UX spec started (often the main menu or core HUD is designed during Technical Setup)
• All ADRs have an Engine Compatibility section with engine version stamped
• All ADRs have a GDD Requirements Addressed section with explicit GDD linkage
• No ADR references APIs listed in docs/engine-reference/[engine]/deprecated-apis.md
• All HIGH RISK engine domains (per VERSION.md) have been explicitly addressed in the architecture document or flagged as open questions
• Architecture traceability matrix has zero Foundation layer gaps (all Foundation requirements must have ADR coverage before Pre-Production)

Engine Validation (read docs/engine-reference/[engine]/VERSION.md first):

• ADRs that touch post-cutoff engine APIs are flagged with Knowledge Risk: HIGH/MEDIUM
• /architecture-review engine audit shows no deprecated API usage
• All ADRs agree on the same engine version (no stale version references)

---

Gate: Pre-Production → Production

Required Artifacts:

• At least 1 prototype in prototypes/ with a README
• First sprint plan exists in production/sprints/
• All MVP-tier GDDs from systems index are complete
• Master architecture document exists at docs/architecture/architecture.md
• At least 3 ADRs covering Foundation-layer decisions exist in docs/architecture/
• Control manifest exists at docs/architecture/control-manifest.md (generated by /create-control-manifest from Accepted ADRs)
• Epics defined in production/epics/ with at least Foundation and Core layer epics present (use /create-epics layer: foundation and /create-epics layer: core to create them, then /create-stories [epic-slug] for each epic)
• Vertical Slice build exists and is playable (not just scope-defined)
• Vertical Slice has been playtested with at least 3 sessions (internal OK)
• Vertical Slice playtest report exists at production/playtests/ or equivalent
• UX specs exist for key screens: main menu, core gameplay HUD (at design/ux/), pause menu
• HUD design document exists at design/ux/hud.md (if game has in-game HUD)
• All key screen UX specs have passed /ux-review (verdict APPROVED or NEEDS REVISION accepted)

Quality Checks:

• Core loop fun is validated — playtest data confirms the central mechanic is enjoyable, not just functional. Explicitly check the Vertical Slice playtest report.
• UX specs cover all UI Requirements sections from MVP-tier GDDs
• Interaction pattern library documents patterns used in key screens
• Accessibility tier from design/accessibility-requirements.md is addressed in all key screen UX specs
• Sprint plan references real story file paths from production/epics/ (not just GDDs — stories must embed GDD req ID + ADR reference)
• Vertical Slice is COMPLETE, not just scoped — the build demonstrates the full core loop end-to-end. At least one complete [start → challenge → resolution] cycle works.
• Architecture document has no unresolved open questions in Foundation or Core layers
• All ADRs have Engine Compatibility sections stamped with the engine version
• All ADRs have ADR Dependencies sections (even if all fields are "None")
• Manual validation confirms GDDs + architecture + epics are coherent (run /review-all-gdds and /architecture-review if not done recently)
• Core fantasy is delivered — at least one playtester independently described an experience that matches the Player Fantasy section of the core system GDDs (without being prompted).

Vertical Slice Validation (FAIL if any item is NO):

• A human has played through the core loop without developer guidance
• The game communicates what to do within the first 2 minutes of play
• No critical "fun blocker" bugs exist in the Vertical Slice build
• The core mechanic feels good to interact with (this is a subjective check — ask the user)

Note

: If any Vertical Slice Validation item is FAIL, the verdict is automatically FAIL regardless of other checks. Advancing without a validated Vertical Slice is the #1 cause of production failure in game development (per GDC postmortem data from 155 projects).

---

Gate: Production → Polish

Required Artifacts:

• src/ has active code organized into subsystems
• All core mechanics from GDD are implemented (cross-reference design/gdd/ with src/)
• Main gameplay path is playable end-to-end
• Test files exist in tests/unit/ and tests/integration/ covering Logic and Integration stories
• All Logic stories from this sprint have corresponding unit test files in tests/unit/
• Smoke check has been run with a PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS verdict — report exists in production/qa/
• At least 3 distinct playtest sessions documented in production/playtests/
• Playtest reports cover: new player experience, mid-game systems, and difficulty curve
• Fun hypothesis from Game Concept has been explicitly validated or revised

Quality Checks:

• Tests are passing (run test suite via Bash)
• No critical/blocker bugs in any bug tracker or known issues
• Core loop plays as designed (compare to GDD acceptance criteria)
• Performance is within budget (check technical-preferences.md targets)
• Playtest findings have been reviewed and critical fun issues addressed (not just documented)
• No "confusion loops" identified — no point in the game where >50% of playtesters got stuck without knowing why
• Difficulty curve matches the Difficulty Curve design doc (if one exists at design/difficulty-curve.md)
• All implemented screens have corresponding UX specs (no "designed in-code" screens)
• Interaction pattern library is up-to-date with all patterns used in implementation
• Accessibility compliance verified against committed tier in design/accessibility-requirements.md

---

Gate: Polish → Release

Required Artifacts:

• All features from milestone plan are implemented
• Content is complete (all levels, assets, dialogue referenced in design docs exist)
• Localization strings are externalized (no hardcoded player-facing text in src/)
• QA test plan exists (/qa-plan output in production/qa/)
• QA sign-off report exists (/team-qa output — APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
• All Must Have story test evidence is present (Logic/Integration: test files pass; Visual/Feel/UI: sign-off docs in production/qa/evidence/)
• Smoke check passes cleanly (PASS verdict) on the release candidate build
• No test regressions from previous sprint (test suite passes fully)
• Balance data has been reviewed (/balance-check run)
• Release checklist completed (/release-checklist or /launch-checklist run)
• Store metadata prepared (if applicable)
• Changelog / patch notes drafted

Quality Checks:

• Full QA pass signed off by qa-lead
• All tests passing
• Performance targets met across all target platforms
• No known critical, high, or medium-severity bugs
• Accessibility basics covered (remapping, text scaling if applicable)
• Localization verified for all target languages
• Legal requirements met (EULA, privacy policy, age ratings if applicable)
• Build compiles and packages cleanly

---

3. Run the Gate Check

Before running artifact checks, read docs/consistency-failures.md if it exists. Extract entries whose Domain matches the target phase (e.g., if checking Systems Design → Technical Setup, pull entries in Economy, Combat, or any GDD domain; if checking Technical Setup → Pre-Production, pull entries in Architecture, Engine). Carry these as context — recurring conflict patterns in the target domain warrant increased scrutiny on those specific checks.

For each item in the target gate:

Artifact Checks

• Use Glob and Read to verify files exist and have meaningful content
• Don't just check existence — verify the file has real content (not just a template header)
• For code checks, verify directory structure and file counts

Quality Checks

• For test checks: Run the test suite via Bash if a test runner is configured
• For design review checks: Read the GDD and check for the 8 required sections
• For performance checks: Read technical-preferences.md and compare against any profiling data in tests/performance/ or recent /perf-profile output
• For localization checks: Grep for hardcoded strings in src/

Cross-Reference Checks

• Compare design/gdd/ documents against src/ implementations
• Check that every system referenced in architecture docs has corresponding code
• Verify sprint plans reference real work items

---

4. Collaborative Assessment

For items that can't be automatically verified, ask the user:

• "I can't automatically verify that the core loop plays well. Has it been playtested?"
• "No playtest report found. Has informal testing been done?"
• "Performance profiling data isn't available. Would you like to run /perf-profile?"

Never assume PASS for unverifiable items. Mark them as MANUAL CHECK NEEDED.

---

4b. Director Panel Assessment

Before generating the final verdict, spawn all three directors as parallel subagents via Task using the parallel gate protocol from .claude/docs/director-gates.md. Issue all three Task calls simultaneously — do not wait for one before starting the next.

Spawn in parallel:

1. creative-director — gate CD-PHASE-GATE (.claude/docs/director-gates.md)
2. technical-director — gate TD-PHASE-GATE (.claude/docs/director-gates.md)
3. producer — gate PR-PHASE-GATE (.claude/docs/director-gates.md)

Pass to each: target phase name, list of artifacts present, and the context fields listed in that gate's definition.

Collect all three responses, then present the Director Panel summary:

## Director Panel Assessment

Creative Director:  [READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY]
  [feedback]

Technical Director: [READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY]
  [feedback]

Producer:           [READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY]
  [feedback]

Apply to the verdict:

• Any director returns NOT READY → verdict is minimum FAIL (user may override with explicit acknowledgement)
• Any director returns CONCERNS → verdict is minimum CONCERNS
• All three READY → eligible for PASS (still subject to artifact and quality checks from Section 3)

---

5. Output the Verdict

## Gate Check: [Current Phase] → [Target Phase]

**Date**: [date]
**Checked by**: gate-check skill

### Required Artifacts: [X/Y present]
- [x] design/gdd/game-concept.md — exists, 2.4KB
- [ ] docs/architecture/ — MISSING (no ADRs found)
- [x] production/sprints/ — exists, 1 sprint plan

### Quality Checks: [X/Y passing]
- [x] GDD has 8/8 required sections
- [ ] Tests — FAILED (3 failures in tests/unit/)
- [?] Core loop playtested — MANUAL CHECK NEEDED

### Blockers
1. **No Architecture Decision Records** — Run `/architecture-decision` to create one
   covering core system architecture before entering production.
2. **3 test failures** — Fix failing tests in tests/unit/ before advancing.

### Recommendations
- [Priority actions to resolve blockers]
- [Optional improvements that aren't blocking]

### Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL]
- **PASS**: All required artifacts present, all quality checks passing
- **CONCERNS**: Minor gaps exist but can be addressed during the next phase
- **FAIL**: Critical blockers must be resolved before advancing

---

5a. Chain-of-Verification

After drafting the verdict in Phase 5, challenge it before finalising.

Step 1 — Generate 5 challenge questions designed to disprove the verdict:

For a PASS draft:

• "Which quality checks did I verify by actually reading a file, vs. inferring they passed?"
• "Are there MANUAL CHECK NEEDED items I marked PASS without user confirmation?"
• "Did I confirm all listed artifacts have real content, not just empty headers?"
• "Could any blocker I dismissed as minor actually prevent the phase from succeeding?"
• "Which single check am I least confident in, and why?"

For a CONCERNS draft:

• "Could any listed CONCERN be elevated to a blocker given the project's current state?"
• "Is the concern resolvable within the next phase, or does it compound over time?"
• "Did I soften any FAIL condition into a CONCERN to avoid a harder verdict?"
• "Are there artifacts I didn't check that could reveal additional blockers?"
• "Do all the CONCERNS together create a blocking problem even if each is minor alone?"

For a FAIL draft:

• "Have I accurately separated hard blockers from strong recommendations?"
• "Are there any PASS items I was too lenient about?"
• "Am I missing any additional blockers the user should know about?"
• "Can I provide a minimal path to PASS — the specific 3 things that must change?"
• "Is the fail condition resolvable, or does it indicate a deeper design problem?"

Step 2 — Answer each question independently. Do NOT reference the draft verdict text — re-check specific files or ask the user.

Step 3 — Revise if needed:

• If any answer reveals a missed blocker → upgrade verdict (PASS→CONCERNS or CONCERNS→FAIL)
• If any answer reveals an over-stated blocker → downgrade only if citing specific evidence
• If answers are consistent → confirm verdict unchanged

Step 4 — Note the verification in the final report output: Chain-of-Verification: [N] questions checked — verdict [unchanged | revised from X to Y]

---

6. Update Stage on PASS

When the verdict is PASS and the user confirms they want to advance:

1. Write the new stage name to production/stage.txt (single line, no trailing newline)
2. This immediately updates the status line for all future sessions

Example: if passing the "Pre-Production → Production" gate:

echo -n "Production" > production/stage.txt

Always ask before writing: "Gate passed. May I update production/stage.txt to 'Production'?"

---

7. Follow-Up Actions

Based on the verdict, suggest specific next steps:

• No game concept? → /brainstorm to create one
• No systems index? → /map-systems to decompose the concept into systems
• Missing design docs? → /reverse-document or delegate to game-designer
• Small design change needed? → /quick-design for changes under ~4 hours (bypasses full GDD pipeline)
• No UX specs? → /ux-design [screen name] to author specs, or /team-ui [feature] for full pipeline
• UX specs not reviewed? → /ux-review [file] or /ux-review all to validate
• No accessibility requirements doc? → create design/accessibility-requirements.md using the accessibility-requirements template
• No interaction pattern library? → /ux-design patterns to initialize it
• GDDs not cross-reviewed? → /review-all-gdds (run after all MVP GDDs are individually approved)
• Cross-GDD consistency issues? → fix flagged GDDs, then re-run /review-all-gdds
• No test framework? → /test-setup to scaffold the framework for your engine
• No QA plan for current sprint? → /qa-plan sprint to generate one before implementation begins
• Missing ADRs? → /architecture-decision for individual decisions
• No master architecture doc? → /create-architecture for the full blueprint
• ADRs missing engine compatibility sections? → Re-run /architecture-decision or manually add Engine Compatibility sections to existing ADRs
• Missing control manifest? → /create-control-manifest (requires Accepted ADRs)
• Missing epics? → /create-epics layer: foundation then /create-epics layer: core (requires control manifest)
• Missing stories for an epic? → /create-stories [epic-slug] (run after each epic is created)
• Stories not implementation-ready? → /story-readiness to validate stories before developers pick them up
• Tests failing? → delegate to lead-programmer or qa-tester
• No playtest data? → /playtest-report
• Less than 3 playtest sessions? → Run more playtests before advancing. Use /playtest-report to structure findings.
• No Difficulty Curve doc? → Consider creating one at design/difficulty-curve.md before polish
• No player journey document? → create design/player-journey.md using the player journey template
• Need a quick sprint check? → /sprint-status for current sprint progress snapshot
• Performance unknown? → /perf-profile
• Not localized? → /localize
• Ready for release? → /launch-checklist

---

Collaborative Protocol

This skill follows the collaborative design principle:

1. Scan first: Check all artifacts and quality gates
2. Ask about unknowns: Don't assume PASS for things you can't verify
3. Present findings: Show the full checklist with status
4. User decides: The verdict is a recommendation — the user makes the final call
5. Get approval: "May I write this gate check report to production/gate-checks/?"

Never block a user from advancing — the verdict is advisory. Document the risks and let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns.