* Add /vertical-slice skill, prototype overhaul, and workflow integration - Add /vertical-slice skill for pre-production validation (Phase 4 gate) - Overhaul /prototype skill with two-mode design: concept prototype (Phase 1) vs vertical slice (Phase 4), with clearer differentiation and higher standards for VS - Update prototyper agent to own both prototype and vertical-slice workflows - Add prototype-report.md and vertical-slice-report.md output templates - Update WORKFLOW-GUIDE, quick-start, skills-reference, agent-coordination-map, and skill-flow-diagrams to fully integrate both skills into the 7-phase pipeline - Remove orphaned empty quick-prototype/ directory Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * sync v1 counts + polish Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Add entity inventory flow, relax vertical-slice gate, improve UX authoring prompts - /asset-spec: new Phase 0b entity & screen inventory when no argument and no existing inventory — reads GDDs/art-bible, proposes categorized list, writes design/assets/entity-inventory.md collaboratively - /asset-spec: entity/character target falls back to inline user description when no source doc exists, rather than failing - /gate-check: vertical slice changed from blocking to CONCERNS-only when absent; built-but-broken slice still fails; adds entity inventory as gate artifact - /ux-design: convert inline approval prompts to AskUserQuestion for structured option capture at key authoring decision points - workflow-catalog.yaml: entity-inventory step added to pre-production; UX spec min_count raised to 3; vertical-slice and prototype marked required: false with updated descriptions - .gitignore: exclude marrow/ eval tooling directory Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Add missing AskUserQuestion widgets to 7 skills Audit found 11 decision points across 7 skills where structured option prompts were missing — using plain text, auto-selection, or no gate at all. Skills patched: - create-epics: per-epic approval + producer CONCERNS verdict - sprint-plan: producer CONCERNS verdict with scope/timeline options - milestone-review: AT RISK / OFF TRACK producer verdicts require acknowledgement - retrospective: existing-retro handling converted from plain text [A]/[B] - quick-design: classification confirmation + draft approve/revise/redirect - tech-debt add mode: category (6 options) + effort (S/M/L/XL) structured capture - regression-suite: no-arg mode selection instead of silent auto-detect - hotfix: severity confirmation gate before workflow begins Also added AskUserQuestion to allowed-tools headers for retrospective, quick-design, tech-debt, regression-suite, and hotfix. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Prep v1 stable: fix WORKFLOW-GUIDE counts, stale agent names, and skill model fields - WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md: correct agent count (48→49), skill count (66/68→73), add 6 missing skills to Appendix B, fix Creative category count (2→4), replace 3 non-existent agent names with correct ue-*/unity-* specialists, add missing godot-csharp/gdextension specialists to hierarchy, fix production/stories/ paths → production/epics/ - coordination-rules.md: replace "not yet used" with opt-in env var note - quick-start.md: rename duplicate "Validate the concept" label → "Prototype the mechanic" - skill-flow-diagrams.md: remove duplicate legacy UX pipeline section - All 62 skills missing model: field now have explicit model: sonnet Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: comprehensive skill audit — consistency, UX, and flow gaps Two-pass audit fixing ~35 bugs across 41 files. Pre-production flow: - Brainstorm next-steps split into Path A (design-first) and Path B (prototype-first) — eliminates "prototype after architecture" confusion - /architecture-review added to pre-production flow in brainstorm and create-architecture handoffs - gate-check traceability check corrected to requirements-traceability.md - dev-story TR registry error now points to /architecture-review (not /create-epics) - start now writes production/stage.txt on first onboarding AskUserQuestion gaps filled: - balance-check, code-review, hotfix, day-one-patch, consistency-check all gain closing widgets and/or missing allowed-tools declarations - hotfix git branch creation now requires user confirmation - sprint-plan review-mode setup moved to Phase 0 (before gates run) - team-combat gains architecture→implementation approval gate - design-review APPROVED path consolidated from 3 widgets to 1 multiSelect All 9 team-* skills: - Phase 0 review-mode resolution added (solo/lean/full now respected) - team-audio output path fixed (design/gdd/ → design/audio/) - team-level final doc compilation delegated to level-designer subagent - team-narrative localization-lead added to composition list - team-qa sprint path fixed (flat files, not directories) - team-release NO-GO override captures written justification - team-live-ops Cancel verdict now explicitly BLOCKED Other fixes: - Art bible path standardized to design/art/art-bible.md (3 wrong refs) - AD-PHASE-GATE added to lean-mode skip list in director-gates.md - design-system duplicate 5d heading fixed; skeleton decline path added; mandatory agent spawns now respect review mode - story-readiness acceptance criteria thresholds now type-aware - create-stories gains multi-ADR and no-ADR handling guidance - consistency-check creates docs/consistency-failures.md on first run - retrospective frontmatter bash injection replaced with explicit Bash call - smoke-check ls -t gains PowerShell fallback - Conventional Commits format documented in coding-standards.md - gate-check: ADR acceptance gate, QA plan check, chain-of-verification tool-action requirement all added Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: expose --review flag in argument-hints for all team-* skills All 9 team-* skills already implement Phase 0 review-mode resolution internally (full/lean/solo), but none advertised [--review full|lean|solo] in their argument-hint. Users had no way to discover the per-run override. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add SECURITY.md with coordinated disclosure policy Defines scope, reporting process (GitHub private vulnerability reporting), contributor security guidelines for hooks/skills/agents, and 90-day coordinated disclosure timeline. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add CONTRIBUTING.md with framework contribution guidelines Covers what PRs are welcome, skill/hook/agent technical requirements, the collaborative principle, testing expectations, commit format, and platform compatibility requirements. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add v1.0.0-beta → v1.0 upgrade section to UPGRADING.md Documents the 17 commits since the beta tag: new /vertical-slice gate, entity inventory flow in /map-systems, AskUserQuestion widgets across 7 skills, --review flag exposure on team-* skills, bug fixes (#21, #36, #42, #43, #45), and the new CONTRIBUTING.md and SECURITY.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
4.8 KiB
Vertical Slice Report: [Concept Name]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Slice Duration: [N days] Target Scope: 3–5 minutes of polished, continuous gameplay Source GDD: design/gdd/game-concept.md
Validation Question
[The full game loop question this build was proving — both experience AND feasibility: "Does a player, starting from nothing, experience [core fantasy] within [N] minutes, without developer guidance — and can we build one such loop in [X] days at representative quality?"]
Scope Built
[Systems implemented, art quality level, what was intentionally omitted.]
Systems included:
- [System 1]
- [System 2]
- [...]
Art/audio quality level: [Placeholder / Representative / Near-shipping] Shortcuts taken deliberately: [List] What was cut from original scope: [List]
Build Velocity Log
[Day-by-day record of what was completed. This is your real production rate data — use it in sprint planning.]
| Day | Completed |
|---|---|
| Day 1 | [What was built] |
| Day 2 | [What was built] |
| Day 3 | [What was built] |
| ... | ... |
Total elapsed: [N days] for [scope summary] Velocity estimate: [N hours per equivalent scope unit — e.g., "1 day per combat encounter, 0.5 days per UI screen"]
Playtest Results
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Total sessions | [N] |
| Internal testers | [N] |
| External testers | [N — people who had not seen the game, if available] |
| Avg session length | [N minutes (target: [N] minutes)] |
| Time to first meaningful action | [N seconds (target: [N] seconds)] |
Observations
[Specific, non-opinion observations from playtest sessions. Quote testers where useful.]
Where testers succeeded without guidance:
- [...]
Where testers were confused or stuck:
- [...]
Emotional reactions observed:
- [...]
Metrics
| Metric | Target | Actual |
|---|---|---|
| Time to first meaningful action | [N sec] | [N sec] |
| Session length | [N min] | [N min] |
| Critical fun blockers found | 0 | [N] |
| Pipeline blockers found | 0 | [N] |
| Architecture surprises | 0 | [N] |
Feel assessment: [Specific — "combat feedback weak; no impact sound on hit" not "felt rough"]
Recommendation: [PROCEED / PIVOT / KILL]
[One paragraph with evidence — reference the validation question directly. Did a player experience the core fantasy within the target time, without developer guidance? Can the team build at this quality on the projected schedule?]
If Proceeding
Production requirements (what must change from slice to production):
- [e.g., "Replace placeholder art with shipped assets"]
- [e.g., "Combat system needs 2 more weapon types"]
Architecture adjustments needed:
- [ADR to update or create]
Sprint velocity estimate based on slice data:
- [e.g., "1 day per enemy type, 2 days per level section, 0.5 days per UI screen"]
Scope adjustments from original design:
- [What the slice revealed about the true production scope]
Performance targets: [Confirmed / Revised — list changes if revised]
Playtest note: Run /playtest-report to structure additional session data
before running /gate-check pre-production.
Next steps:
/gate-check pre-production— formally advance to Production/create-epics layer:foundation— plan Foundation layer epics/create-epics layer:core— plan Core layer epics/sprint-plan— use velocity data from this report in the estimate
If Pivoting
[Which GDDs need revision and why — be specific about the failure mode observed.]
Systems requiring GDD revision: [List]
Architecture decisions to revisit: [List — use /architecture-decision to update]
Core loop change needed: [What specifically to change]
Next steps:
/design-system [mechanic]— revise affected GDDs/architecture-decision [decision]— address architecture issues/vertical-slice— re-validate after revisions
If Killing
[Why the full game loop does not work at this quality level. What specifically prevented the player from experiencing the core fantasy. What to do instead.]
Next step: /brainstorm to explore a new direction, or /prototype [new-concept]
to test a different concept cheaply before investing in another vertical slice.
Lessons Learned
-
What assumptions were broken by building to near-production quality? [...]
-
What surprised us about the pipeline or architecture? [...]
-
What would we change about the slice scope if we ran this again? [...]
Vertical slice code location:
prototypes/[concept-name]-vertical-slice/This code is reference material only. Production implementation is written from scratch. Never import or refactor this code into production.