* 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>
5.8 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bug-report | Creates a structured bug report from a description, or analyzes code to identify potential bugs. Ensures every bug report has full reproduction steps, severity assessment, and context. | [description] | analyze [path-to-file] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, Write | sonnet |
Phase 1: Parse Arguments
Determine the mode from the argument:
- No keyword → Description Mode: generate a structured bug report from the provided description
analyze [path]→ Analyze Mode: read the target file(s) and identify potential bugsverify [BUG-ID]→ Verify Mode: confirm a reported fix actually resolved the bugclose [BUG-ID]→ Close Mode: mark a verified bug as closed with resolution record
If no argument is provided, ask the user for a bug description before proceeding.
Phase 2A: Description Mode
-
Parse the description for key information: what broke, when, how to reproduce it, and what the expected behavior is.
-
Search the codebase for related files using Grep/Glob to add context (affected system, likely files).
-
Draft the bug report:
# Bug Report
## Summary
**Title**: [Concise, descriptive title]
**ID**: BUG-[NNNN]
**Severity**: [S1-Critical / S2-Major / S3-Minor / S4-Trivial]
**Priority**: [P1-Immediate / P2-Next Sprint / P3-Backlog / P4-Wishlist]
**Status**: Open
**Reported**: [Date]
**Reporter**: [Name]
## Classification
- **Category**: [Gameplay / UI / Audio / Visual / Performance / Crash / Network]
- **System**: [Which game system is affected]
- **Frequency**: [Always / Often (>50%) / Sometimes (10-50%) / Rare (<10%)]
- **Regression**: [Yes/No/Unknown -- was this working before?]
## Environment
- **Build**: [Version or commit hash]
- **Platform**: [OS, hardware if relevant]
- **Scene/Level**: [Where in the game]
- **Game State**: [Relevant state -- inventory, quest progress, etc.]
## Reproduction Steps
**Preconditions**: [Required state before starting]
1. [Exact step 1]
2. [Exact step 2]
3. [Exact step 3]
**Expected Result**: [What should happen]
**Actual Result**: [What actually happens]
## Technical Context
- **Likely affected files**: [List of files based on codebase search]
- **Related systems**: [What other systems might be involved]
- **Possible root cause**: [If identifiable from the description]
## Evidence
- **Logs**: [Relevant log output if available]
- **Visual**: [Description of visual evidence]
## Related Issues
- [Links to related bugs or design documents]
## Notes
[Any additional context or observations]
Phase 2B: Analyze Mode
-
Read the target file(s) specified in the argument.
-
Identify potential bugs: null references, off-by-one errors, race conditions, unhandled edge cases, resource leaks, incorrect state transitions.
-
For each potential bug, generate a bug report using the template above, with the likely trigger scenario and recommended fix filled in.
Phase 2C: Verify Mode
Read production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md. Extract the reproduction steps and expected result.
- Re-run reproduction steps — use Grep/Glob to check whether the root cause code path still exists as described. If the fix removed or changed it, note the change.
- Run the related test — if the bug's system has a test file in
tests/, run it via Bash and report pass/fail. - Check for regression — grep the codebase for any new occurrence of the pattern that caused the bug.
Produce a verification verdict:
- VERIFIED FIXED — reproduction steps no longer produce the bug; related tests pass
- STILL PRESENT — bug reproduces as described; fix did not resolve the issue
- CANNOT VERIFY — automated checks inconclusive; manual playtest required
Ask: "May I update production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md to set Status: Verified Fixed / Still Present / Cannot Verify?"
If STILL PRESENT: reopen the bug, set Status back to Open, and suggest re-running /hotfix [BUG-ID].
Phase 2D: Close Mode
Read production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md. Confirm Status is Verified Fixed before closing. If status is anything else, stop: "Bug [ID] must be Verified Fixed before it can be closed. Run /bug-report verify [BUG-ID] first."
Append a closure record to the bug file:
## Closure Record
**Closed**: [date]
**Resolution**: Fixed — [one-line description of what was changed]
**Fix commit / PR**: [if known]
**Verified by**: qa-tester
**Closed by**: [user]
**Regression test**: [test file path, or "Manual verification"]
**Status**: Closed
Update the top-level **Status**: Open field to **Status**: Closed.
Ask: "May I update production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md to mark it Closed?"
After closing, check production/qa/bug-triage-*.md — if the bug appears in an open triage report, note: "Bug [ID] is referenced in the triage report. Run /bug-triage to refresh the open bug count."
Phase 3: Save Report
Present the completed bug report(s) to the user.
Ask: "May I write this to production/qa/bugs/BUG-[NNNN].md?"
If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed. Verdict: COMPLETE — bug report filed.
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
Phase 4: Next Steps
After saving, suggest based on mode:
After filing (Description/Analyze mode):
- Run
/bug-triageto prioritize alongside existing open bugs - If S1 or S2: run
/hotfix [BUG-ID]for emergency fix workflow
After fixing the bug (developer confirms fix is in):
- Run
/bug-report verify [BUG-ID]— confirm the fix actually works before closing - Never mark a bug closed without verification — a fix that doesn't verify is still Open
After verify returns VERIFIED FIXED:
- Run
/bug-report close [BUG-ID]— write the closure record and update status - Run
/bug-triageto refresh the open bug count and remove it from the active list