* 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>
11 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model, context
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | model | context |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sprint-plan | Generates a new sprint plan or updates an existing one based on the current milestone, completed work, and available capacity. Pulls context from production documents and design backlogs. | [new|update|status] [--review full|lean|solo] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Task, AskUserQuestion | sonnet | !ls production/sprints/ 2>/dev/null |
Phase 0: Parse Arguments
Extract the mode argument (new, update, or status) and resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):
- If
--review [full|lean|solo]was passed → use that - Else read
production/review-mode.txt→ use that value - Else → default to
lean
See .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern.
Review mode check (before gates run):
- Read
production/review-mode.txtif it exists. Use that mode. - If the file doesn't exist and this is a
newsprint: useAskUserQuestion:- Prompt: "No review mode is set. Which review depth would you like for this sprint?"
- Options:
[A] full — spawn all director and lead gates[B] lean — skip non-phase-gate director reviews (recommended for most sprints)[C] solo — skip all gate spawning
- After selection: write
production/review-mode.txtwith the chosen mode. Say: "Review mode set to [mode] and saved to production/review-mode.txt."
- If the file doesn't exist and this is NOT a
newsprint (e.g., updating an existing sprint): default toleansilently.
Phase 1: Gather Context
-
Read the current milestone from
production/milestones/. -
Read the previous sprint (if any) from
production/sprints/to understand velocity and carryover. -
Scan design documents in
design/gdd/for features tagged as ready for implementation. -
Check the risk register at
production/risk-register/.
Phase 2: Generate Output
For new:
Generate a sprint plan following this format and present it to the user. Do NOT ask to write yet — the producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) runs first and may require revisions before the file is written.
# Sprint [N] — [Start Date] to [End Date]
## Sprint Goal
[One sentence describing what this sprint achieves toward the milestone]
## Capacity
- Total days: [X]
- Buffer (20%): [Y days reserved for unplanned work]
- Available: [Z days]
## Tasks
### Must Have (Critical Path)
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
### Should Have
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
### Nice to Have
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
## Carryover from Previous Sprint
| Task | Reason | New Estimate |
|------|--------|-------------|
## Risks
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|
## Dependencies on External Factors
- [List any external dependencies]
## Definition of Done for this Sprint
- [ ] All Must Have tasks completed
- [ ] All tasks pass acceptance criteria
- [ ] QA plan exists (`production/qa/qa-plan-sprint-[N].md`)
- [ ] All Logic/Integration stories have passing unit/integration tests
- [ ] Smoke check passed (`/smoke-check sprint`)
- [ ] QA sign-off report: APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (`/team-qa sprint`)
- [ ] No S1 or S2 bugs in delivered features
- [ ] Design documents updated for any deviations
- [ ] Code reviewed and merged
For update:
Update an existing sprint plan:
- Read the most recent sprint plan from
production/sprints/. - Present the current story list with their current statuses from
production/sprint-status.yaml. - Ask the user what to change: stories to add, remove, reprioritize, or re-estimate. Use
AskUserQuestionto gather changes. - Apply the changes and re-present the full revised plan for review.
- Re-run the producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) on the revised plan.
- Write the updated markdown plan and yaml together (same approval as
newmode).
Note: update mode does not reset story statuses. Stories already marked in-progress or done keep their status. Only backlog and ready-for-dev stories can be removed or reprioritized freely.
For status:
Generate a status report:
# Sprint [N] Status -- [Date]
## Progress: [X/Y tasks complete] ([Z%])
### Completed
| Task | Completed By | Notes |
|------|-------------|-------|
### In Progress
| Task | Owner | % Done | Blockers |
|------|-------|--------|----------|
### Not Started
| Task | Owner | At Risk? | Notes |
|------|-------|----------|-------|
### Blocked
| Task | Blocker | Owner of Blocker | ETA |
|------|---------|-----------------|-----|
## Burndown Assessment
[On track / Behind / Ahead]
[If behind: What is being cut or deferred]
## Emerging Risks
- [Any new risks identified this sprint]
Phase 3: Prepare Sprint Status File
After generating a new sprint plan, also prepare the production/sprint-status.yaml content.
This is the machine-readable source of truth for story status — read by
/sprint-status, /story-done, and /help without markdown parsing.
Do not write the yaml yet — hold it in context. The producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) may revise the story list. Both files will be written together after Phase 4 in a single write approval.
Format:
# Auto-generated by /sprint-plan. Updated by /story-done and /dev-story.
# DO NOT edit manually — use /story-done to update story status.
#
# Status value mapping (yaml ↔ story file Status field):
# backlog ↔ Not Started
# ready-for-dev ↔ Ready
# in-progress ↔ In Progress
# review ↔ In Review
# done ↔ Complete
# blocked ↔ Blocked
sprint: [N]
goal: "[sprint goal]"
start: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
end: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
generated: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
updated: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
stories:
- id: "[epic-story, e.g. 1-1]"
name: "[story name]"
file: "[production/stories/path.md]"
priority: must-have # must-have | should-have | nice-to-have
status: ready-for-dev # backlog | ready-for-dev | in-progress | review | done | blocked
owner: ""
estimate_days: 0
blocker: ""
completed: ""
Initialize each story from the sprint plan's task tables:
- Must Have tasks →
priority: must-have,status: ready-for-dev - Should Have tasks →
priority: should-have,status: backlog - Nice to Have tasks →
priority: nice-to-have,status: backlog
For update: read the existing sprint-status.yaml, carry over statuses for
stories that haven't changed, add new stories, remove dropped ones.
Phase 4: Producer Feasibility Gate
Review mode check — apply before spawning PR-SPRINT:
solo→ skip. Note: "PR-SPRINT skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 5 (QA plan gate).lean→ skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-SPRINT skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 5 (QA plan gate).full→ spawn as normal.
Before finalising the sprint plan, spawn producer via Task using gate PR-SPRINT (.claude/docs/director-gates.md).
Pass: proposed story list (titles, estimates, dependencies), total team capacity in hours/days, any carryover from the previous sprint, milestone constraints and deadline.
Present the producer's assessment.
If UNREALISTIC: revise the story selection (defer stories to Should Have or Nice to Have) and re-present the updated plan before asking for write approval.
If CONCERNS, use AskUserQuestion:
- Prompt: "Producer flagged concerns with this sprint plan. How do you want to proceed?"
- Options:
[A] Proceed as planned — I accept the risk[B] Adjust scope — defer some Should Have stories[C] Extend the sprint timeline
If [A]: proceed to write approval. If [B]: revise the story list, re-present the updated plan, then proceed to write approval. If [C]: adjust sprint dates and capacity, re-present the updated plan, then proceed to write approval.
After handling the producer's verdict, ask: "May I write the sprint plan to production/sprints/sprint-[N].md and production/sprint-status.yaml?" If yes, write both files (creating directories as needed). Verdict: COMPLETE — sprint plan and status file created. If no: Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
After writing, add:
Scope check: If this sprint includes stories added beyond the original epic scope, run
/scope-check [epic]to detect scope creep before implementation begins.
Phase 5: QA Plan Gate
Before closing the sprint plan, check whether a QA plan exists for this sprint.
Use Glob to look for production/qa/qa-plan-sprint-[N].md or any file in production/qa/ referencing this sprint number.
If a QA plan is found: note it in the sprint plan output — "QA Plan: [path]" — and proceed.
If no QA plan exists: do not silently proceed. Surface this explicitly:
"This sprint has no QA plan. A sprint plan without a QA plan means test requirements are undefined — developers won't know what 'done' looks like from a QA perspective, and the sprint cannot pass the Production → Polish gate without one.
Run
/qa-plan sprintnow, before starting any implementation. It takes one session and produces the test case requirements each story needs."
Use AskUserQuestion:
- Prompt: "No QA plan found for this sprint. How do you want to proceed?"
- Options:
[A] Run /qa-plan sprint now — I'll do that before starting implementation (Recommended)[B] Skip for now — I understand QA sign-off will be blocked at the Production → Polish gate
If [A]: close with "Sprint plan written. Run /qa-plan sprint next — then begin implementation."
If [B]: add a warning block to the sprint plan document:
> ⚠️ **No QA Plan**: This sprint was started without a QA plan. Run `/qa-plan sprint`
> before the last story is implemented. The Production → Polish gate requires a QA
> sign-off report, which requires a QA plan.
Phase 6: Next Steps
After the sprint plan is written and QA plan status is resolved:
/qa-plan sprint— required before implementation begins — defines test cases per story so developers implement against QA specs, not a blank slate/story-readiness [story-file]— validate a story is ready before starting it/dev-story [story-file]— begin implementing the first story/sprint-status— check progress mid-sprint/scope-check [epic]— verify no scope creep before implementation begins
Review mode configuration: All director gates (producer feasibility, QA review, code review) respect the project review mode. The review mode is set in Phase 0 when the file does not exist (for new sprints), or can be overridden per-run with --review full|lean|solo as an argument. The file production/review-mode.txt contains one of:
lean— skip automated director gates (default if file is absent — fastest for solo dev)full— run all director gates as spawned sub-agentssolo— skip all gates unconditionally (single-developer, no review)
This file is read by /sprint-plan, /story-readiness, /story-done, and other skills at startup.