Files
Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/docs/templates/vertical-slice-report.md
Donchitos 984023ddac Release v1.0.0 — concept-prototype/vertical-slice split, workflow restructure, polish (#50)
* 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>
2026-05-13 20:15:08 +10:00

170 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Vertical Slice Report: [Concept Name]
> **Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
> **Slice Duration**: [N days]
> **Target Scope**: 35 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:**
1. `/gate-check pre-production` — formally advance to Production
2. `/create-epics layer:foundation` — plan Foundation layer epics
3. `/create-epics layer:core` — plan Core layer epics
4. `/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:**
1. `/design-system [mechanic]` — revise affected GDDs
2. `/architecture-decision [decision]` — address architecture issues
3. `/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.*