mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 04:51:46 +00:00
984023ddac
* 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>
127 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
127 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: perf-profile
|
|
description: "Structured performance profiling workflow. Identifies bottlenecks, measures against budgets, and generates optimization recommendations with priority rankings."
|
|
argument-hint: "[system-name or 'full']"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
agent: performance-analyst
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
|
|
model: sonnet
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Determine Scope
|
|
|
|
Read the argument:
|
|
|
|
- System name → focus profiling on that specific system
|
|
- `full` → run a comprehensive profile across all systems
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Load Performance Budgets
|
|
|
|
Check for existing performance targets in design docs or CLAUDE.md:
|
|
|
|
- Target FPS (e.g., 60fps = 16.67ms frame budget)
|
|
- Memory budget (total and per-system)
|
|
- Load time targets
|
|
- Draw call budgets
|
|
- Network bandwidth limits (if multiplayer)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Analyze Codebase
|
|
|
|
**CPU Profiling Targets:**
|
|
- `_process()` / `Update()` / `Tick()` functions — list all and estimate cost
|
|
- Nested loops over large collections
|
|
- String operations in hot paths
|
|
- Allocation patterns in per-frame code
|
|
- Unoptimized search/sort over game entities
|
|
- Expensive physics queries (raycasts, overlaps) every frame
|
|
|
|
**Memory Profiling Targets:**
|
|
- Large data structures and their growth patterns
|
|
- Texture/asset memory footprint estimates
|
|
- Object pool vs instantiate/destroy patterns
|
|
- Leaked references (objects that should be freed but aren't)
|
|
- Cache sizes and eviction policies
|
|
|
|
**Rendering Targets (if applicable):**
|
|
- Draw call estimates
|
|
- Overdraw from overlapping transparent objects
|
|
- Shader complexity
|
|
- Unoptimized particle systems
|
|
- Missing LODs or occlusion culling
|
|
|
|
**I/O Targets:**
|
|
- Save/load performance
|
|
- Asset loading patterns (sync vs async)
|
|
- Network message frequency and size
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Generate Profiling Report
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Performance Profile: [System or Full]
|
|
Generated: [Date]
|
|
|
|
### Performance Budgets
|
|
| Metric | Budget | Estimated Current | Status |
|
|
|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|
|
|
| Frame time | [16.67ms] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
|
|
| Memory | [target] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
|
|
| Load time | [target] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
|
|
| Draw calls | [target] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
|
|
|
|
### Hotspots Identified
|
|
| # | Location | Issue | Estimated Impact | Fix Effort |
|
|
|---|----------|-------|------------------|------------|
|
|
|
|
### Optimization Recommendations (Priority Order)
|
|
1. **[Title]** — [Description]
|
|
- Location: [file:line]
|
|
- Expected gain: [estimate]
|
|
- Risk: [Low/Med/High]
|
|
- Approach: [How to implement]
|
|
|
|
### Quick Wins (< 1 hour each)
|
|
- [Simple optimization 1]
|
|
|
|
### Requires Investigation
|
|
- [Area that needs actual runtime profiling to confirm impact]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Output the report with a summary: top 3 hotspots, estimated headroom vs budget, and recommended next action.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 5: Scope and Timeline Decision
|
|
|
|
Activate this phase only if any hotspot has Fix Effort rated M or L.
|
|
|
|
Present significant-effort items and ask the user to choose for each:
|
|
|
|
- **A) Implement the optimization** (proceed with fix now or schedule it)
|
|
- **B) Reduce feature scope** (run `/scope-check [feature]` to analyze trade-offs)
|
|
- **C) Accept the performance hit and defer to Polish phase** (log as known issue)
|
|
- **D) Escalate to technical-director for an architectural decision** (run `/architecture-decision`)
|
|
|
|
If multiple items are deferred to Polish (choice C), record them under `### Deferred to Polish`.
|
|
|
|
This skill is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — performance profile generated.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 6: Next Steps
|
|
|
|
- If bottlenecks require architectural change: run `/architecture-decision`.
|
|
- If scope reduction is needed: run `/scope-check [feature]`.
|
|
- To schedule optimizations: run `/sprint-plan update`.
|
|
|
|
### Rules
|
|
- Never optimize without measuring first — gut feelings about performance are unreliable
|
|
- Recommendations must include estimated impact — "make it faster" is not actionable
|
|
- Profile on target hardware, not just development machines
|
|
- Static analysis (this skill) identifies candidates; runtime profiling confirms
|