mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
* 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>
296 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
296 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: quick-design
|
||
description: "Lightweight design spec for small changes — tuning adjustments, minor mechanics, balance tweaks. Skips full GDD authoring when a system GDD already exists or the change is too small to warrant one. Produces a Quick Design Spec that embeds directly into story files."
|
||
argument-hint: "[brief description of the change]"
|
||
user-invocable: true
|
||
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, AskUserQuestion
|
||
model: sonnet
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Quick Design
|
||
|
||
This is the **lightweight design path** for changes that don't need a full GDD.
|
||
Full GDD authoring via `/design-system` is the heavyweight path. Use this skill
|
||
for work under approximately 4 hours of implementation — tuning adjustments,
|
||
minor behavioral tweaks, small additions to existing systems, or standalone
|
||
features too small to warrant a full document.
|
||
|
||
**Output:** `design/quick-specs/[name]-[date].md`
|
||
|
||
**When to run:** Anytime a change is too small for `/design-system` but too
|
||
meaningful to implement without a written rationale.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. Classify the Change
|
||
|
||
First, read the argument and determine which category this change falls into:
|
||
|
||
- **Tuning** — changing numbers or balance values in an existing system with no
|
||
behavioral change (most minimal path). Example: "increase jump height from 5
|
||
to 6 units", "reduce enemy patrol speed by 10%".
|
||
- **Tweak** — a small behavioral change to an existing system that introduces no
|
||
new states, branches, or systems. Example: "make dash invincible on frame 1",
|
||
"allow combo to cancel into roll".
|
||
- **Addition** — adding a small mechanic to an existing system that may introduce
|
||
1-2 new states or interactions. Example: "add a parry window to the block
|
||
mechanic", "add a charge variant to the basic attack".
|
||
- **New Small System** — a standalone feature small enough that it has no
|
||
existing GDD and is under approximately one week of implementation work.
|
||
Example: "achievement popup system", "simple day/night visual cycle".
|
||
|
||
If the change does NOT fit these categories — it introduces a new system with
|
||
significant cross-system dependencies, requires more than one week of
|
||
implementation, or fundamentally alters an existing system's core rules — stop
|
||
and redirect to `/design-system` instead.
|
||
|
||
If there is no argument, ask the user to describe the change (plain text prompt), then classify it using the criteria above.
|
||
|
||
Present the inferred classification using `AskUserQuestion`:
|
||
- Prompt: "I've classified this as **[inferred type]** — [brief reason]. Is that correct?"
|
||
- Options:
|
||
- `[A] Yes — [inferred type] is correct`
|
||
- `[B] Tuning — changing numbers or balance values only`
|
||
- `[C] Tweak — small behavioral change to an existing system`
|
||
- `[D] Addition — adding a small mechanic to an existing system`
|
||
- `[E] New Small System — standalone feature, under one week of work`
|
||
- `[F] This is too large — redirect me to /design-system`
|
||
|
||
If [F]: stop. Verdict: **REDIRECTED** — use `/design-system` for this change.
|
||
Otherwise: proceed with the selected type.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2. Context Scan
|
||
|
||
Before drafting anything, read the relevant context:
|
||
|
||
- Search `design/gdd/` for the GDD most relevant to this change. Read the
|
||
sections that this change would affect.
|
||
- Check whether `design/gdd/systems-index.md` exists. If it does, read it to
|
||
understand where this system sits in the dependency graph and what tier it
|
||
belongs to. If it does not exist, note "No systems index found — skipping
|
||
dependency tier check." and continue.
|
||
- Check `design/quick-specs/` for any prior quick specs that touched this
|
||
system — avoid contradicting them.
|
||
- If this is a Tuning change, also check `assets/data/` for the data file that
|
||
holds the relevant values.
|
||
|
||
Report what was found: "Found GDD at [path]. Relevant section: [section name].
|
||
No conflicting quick specs found." (or note any conflicts found.)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 3. Draft the Quick Design Spec
|
||
|
||
Use the appropriate spec format for the change category.
|
||
|
||
### For Tuning changes
|
||
|
||
Produce a single table:
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
# Quick Design Spec: [Title]
|
||
|
||
**Type**: Tuning
|
||
**System**: [System name]
|
||
**GDD Reference**: `design/gdd/[filename].md` — Tuning Knobs section
|
||
**Date**: [today]
|
||
|
||
## Change
|
||
|
||
| Parameter | Old Value | New Value | Rationale |
|
||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
|
||
| [param] | [old] | [new] | [why] |
|
||
|
||
## Tuning Knob Mapping
|
||
|
||
Maps to GDD Tuning Knob: [knob name and its documented range].
|
||
New value is [within / at the edge of / outside] the documented range.
|
||
[If outside: explain why the range should be extended.]
|
||
|
||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
||
- [ ] [Parameter] reads [new value] from `assets/data/[file]`
|
||
- [ ] Behavior difference is observable in [specific context]
|
||
- [ ] No regression in [related behavior]
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### For Tweak and Addition changes
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
# Quick Design Spec: [Title]
|
||
|
||
**Type**: [Tweak / Addition]
|
||
**System**: [System name]
|
||
**GDD Reference**: `design/gdd/[filename].md`
|
||
**Date**: [today]
|
||
|
||
## Change Summary
|
||
|
||
[1-2 sentences describing what changes and why.]
|
||
|
||
## Motivation
|
||
|
||
[Why is this change needed? What player experience problem does it solve?
|
||
Reference the relevant MDA aesthetic or player feedback if applicable.]
|
||
|
||
## Design Delta
|
||
|
||
Current GDD says (quoting `design/gdd/[filename].md`, [section]):
|
||
|
||
> [exact quote of the relevant rule or description]
|
||
|
||
This spec changes that to:
|
||
|
||
[New rule or description, written with the same precision as a GDD Detailed
|
||
Rules section. A programmer should be able to implement from this text alone.]
|
||
|
||
## New Rules / Values
|
||
|
||
[Full unambiguous statement of the replacement content. If this introduces
|
||
new states, list them. If it introduces new parameters, define their ranges.]
|
||
|
||
## Affected Systems
|
||
|
||
| System | Impact | Action Required |
|
||
|--------|--------|-----------------|
|
||
| [system] | [how it is affected] | [update GDD / update data file / no action] |
|
||
|
||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
||
- [ ] [Specific, testable criterion 1]
|
||
- [ ] [Specific, testable criterion 2]
|
||
- [ ] [Specific, testable criterion 3]
|
||
- [ ] No regression: [the original behavior this must not break]
|
||
|
||
## GDD Update Required?
|
||
|
||
[Yes / No]
|
||
[If yes: which file, which section, and what the update should say.]
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### For New Small System changes
|
||
|
||
Use a trimmed GDD structure. Include only the sections that are directly
|
||
necessary — skip Player Fantasy, full Formulas, and Edge Cases unless the
|
||
system specifically requires them.
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
# Quick Design Spec: [Title]
|
||
|
||
**Type**: New Small System
|
||
**Scope**: [1-2 sentence description of what this system does and doesn't do]
|
||
**Date**: [today]
|
||
**Estimated Implementation**: [hours]
|
||
|
||
## Overview
|
||
|
||
[One paragraph a new team member could understand. What does this system do,
|
||
when does it activate, and what does it produce?]
|
||
|
||
## Core Rules
|
||
|
||
[Unambiguous rules for the system. Use numbered lists for sequential behavior
|
||
and bullet lists for conditions. Be precise enough that a programmer can
|
||
implement without asking questions.]
|
||
|
||
## Tuning Knobs
|
||
|
||
| Knob | Default | Range | Category | Rationale |
|
||
|------|---------|-------|----------|-----------|
|
||
| [name] | [value] | [min–max] | [feel/curve/gate] | [why this default] |
|
||
|
||
All values must live in `assets/data/[appropriate-file].json`, not hardcoded.
|
||
|
||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||
|
||
- [ ] [Functional criterion: does the right thing]
|
||
- [ ] [Functional criterion: handles the edge case]
|
||
- [ ] [Experiential criterion: feels right — what a playtest validates]
|
||
- [ ] [Regression criterion: does not break adjacent system]
|
||
|
||
## Systems Index
|
||
|
||
This system is not currently in `design/gdd/systems-index.md`.
|
||
[If it should be added: suggest which layer and priority tier.]
|
||
[If it is too small to track: state "This system is below systems-index
|
||
tracking threshold — quick spec is sufficient."]
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 4. Approval and Filing
|
||
|
||
Present the draft to the user in full. Then use `AskUserQuestion`:
|
||
- Prompt: "Here's the Quick Design Spec draft. How do you want to proceed?"
|
||
- Options:
|
||
- `[A] Approve — write it as shown`
|
||
- `[B] Revise — I'll describe what to change`
|
||
- `[C] This grew too large — redirect to /design-system instead`
|
||
|
||
If [B]: collect the requested changes, revise the draft, and re-present this widget.
|
||
If [C]: stop. Verdict: **REDIRECTED** — use `/design-system` for this change.
|
||
|
||
If [A]: ask "May I write this Quick Design Spec to
|
||
`design/quick-specs/[kebab-case-title]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md`?"
|
||
|
||
Use today's date in the filename. The title should be a kebab-case description
|
||
of the change (e.g., `jump-height-tuning-2026-03-10`,
|
||
`parry-window-addition-2026-03-10`).
|
||
|
||
If yes, create the `design/quick-specs/` directory if it does not exist, then
|
||
write the file.
|
||
|
||
If a GDD update is required (flagged in the spec), ask separately after
|
||
writing the quick spec:
|
||
|
||
"This spec modifies rules in [System Name]. May I update
|
||
`design/gdd/[filename].md` — specifically the [section name] section?"
|
||
|
||
Show the exact text that would be changed (old vs. new) before asking. Do not
|
||
make GDD edits without explicit approval.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 5. Handoff
|
||
|
||
After writing the file, output:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Quick Design Spec written to: design/quick-specs/[filename].md
|
||
Type: [Tuning / Tweak / Addition / New Small System]
|
||
System: [system name]
|
||
GDD update: [Required — pending approval / Applied / Not required]
|
||
|
||
Next step: This spec is ready for `/story-readiness` validation before
|
||
implementation. Reference this spec in the story's GDD Reference field.
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Pipeline Notes
|
||
|
||
Verdict: **COMPLETE** — quick design spec written and ready for implementation.
|
||
|
||
Quick Design Specs **bypass** `/design-review` and `/review-all-gdds` by
|
||
design. They are for small, low-risk, well-scoped changes where the cost of
|
||
the full review pipeline exceeds the risk of the change itself.
|
||
|
||
Redirect to the full pipeline if any of the following are true:
|
||
- The change adds a new system that belongs in the systems index
|
||
- The change significantly alters cross-system behavior or a system's
|
||
contracts with other systems
|
||
- The change introduces new player-facing mechanics that affect the
|
||
game's MDA aesthetic balance
|
||
- Implementation is likely to exceed one week of work
|
||
|
||
In those cases: "This change has grown beyond quick-spec scope. I recommend
|
||
using `/design-system` to author a full GDD for this."
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Recommended Next Steps
|
||
|
||
- Run `/story-readiness [story-path]` to validate the story before implementation begins — reference this spec in the story's GDD Reference field
|
||
- Run `/dev-story [story-path]` to implement once the story passes readiness checks
|
||
- If the change is larger than expected, run `/design-system [system-name]` to author a full GDD instead
|