* 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>
16 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| story-readiness | Validate that a story file is implementation-ready. Checks for embedded GDD requirements, ADR references, engine notes, clear acceptance criteria, and no open design questions. Produces READY / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED verdict with specific gaps. Use when user says 'is this story ready', 'can I start on this story', 'is story X ready to implement'. | [story-file-path or 'all' or 'sprint'] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, AskUserQuestion, Task | sonnet |
Story Readiness
This skill validates that a story file contains everything a developer needs to begin implementation — no mid-sprint design interruptions, no guessing, no ambiguous acceptance criteria. Run it before assigning a story.
This skill is read-only. It never edits story files. It reports findings and asks whether the user wants help filling gaps.
Output: Verdict per story (READY / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED) with a specific gap list for each non-ready story.
Phase 0: Resolve Review Mode
Resolve the review mode once at startup (store for all gate spawns this run):
- If skill was called with
--review [full|lean|solo]→ use that value - Else read
production/review-mode.txt→ use that value - Else → default to
lean
See .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern and mode definitions.
1. Parse Arguments
Scope: $ARGUMENTS[0] (blank = ask user via AskUserQuestion)
- Specific path (e.g.,
/story-readiness production/epics/combat/story-001-basic-attack.md): validate that single story file. sprint: read the current sprint plan fromproduction/sprints/(most recent file), extract every story path it references, validate each one.all: globproduction/epics/**/*.md, excludeEPIC.mdindex files, validate every story file found.- No argument: ask the user which scope to validate.
If no argument is given, use AskUserQuestion:
- "What would you like to validate?"
- Options: "A specific story file", "All stories in the current sprint", "All stories in production/epics/", "Stories for a specific epic"
Report the scope before proceeding: "Validating [N] story files."
2. Load Supporting Context
Before checking any stories, load reference documents once (not per-story):
design/gdd/systems-index.md— to know which systems have approved GDDsdocs/architecture/control-manifest.md— to know which manifest rules exist (if the file does not exist, note it as missing once; do not re-flag per story) Also extract theManifest Version:date from the header block if the file exists.docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml— index all entries byid. Used to validate TR-IDs in stories. If the file does not exist, note it once; TR-ID checks will auto-pass for all stories (registry predates stories, so missing registry means stories are from before TR tracking was introduced).- All ADR status fields — for each unique ADR referenced across the stories being
checked, read the ADR file and note its
Status:field. Cache these so you don't re-read the same ADR for every story. - The current sprint file (if scope is
sprint) — to identify Must Have / Should Have priority for escalation decisions
3. Story Readiness Checklist
For each story file, evaluate every item below. A story is READY only if all items pass or are explicitly marked N/A with a stated reason.
Design Completeness
- GDD requirement referenced: The story includes a
design/gdd/path and quotes or links a specific requirement, acceptance criterion, or rule from that GDD — not just the GDD filename. A link to the document without tracing to a specific requirement does not pass. - Requirement is self-contained: The acceptance criteria in the story are understandable without opening the GDD. A developer should not need to read a separate document to understand what DONE means.
- Acceptance criteria are testable: Each criterion is a specific, observable condition — not "implement X" or "the system works correctly". Bad example: "Implement the jump mechanic." Good example: "Jump reaches max height of 5 units within 0.3 seconds when jump is held."
- No acceptance criteria require judgment calls (auto-pass for
Type: Visual/Feel): Criteria like "feels responsive" or "looks good" are not testable without a defined benchmark. For Logic, Integration, UI, and Config/Data stories, these must be replaced with specific observable conditions. For Visual/Feel stories, subjective criteria are expected and this check auto-passes — instead verify that each subjective criterion has a paired playtest protocol or evidence requirement (e.g., "evidence doc required atproduction/qa/evidence/[slug]-evidence.md"). PASS if the acceptance criterion ends with or is accompanied by an explicit reference to a file path such asproduction/qa/evidence/[slug]-evidence.md. NEEDS WORK if the criterion is purely subjective with no evidence file path specified.
Architecture Completeness
- ADR referenced or N/A stated: The story references at least one ADR, OR explicitly states "No ADR applies" with a brief reason. A story with no ADR reference and no explicit N/A note fails this check.
- ADR is Accepted (not Proposed): For each referenced ADR, check its
Status:field using the cached ADR statuses loaded in Section 2.- If
Status: Accepted→ pass. - If
Status: Proposed→ BLOCKED: the ADR may change before it is accepted, and the story's implementation guidance could be wrong. Fix:BLOCKED: ADR-NNNN is Proposed — wait for acceptance before implementing. - If the ADR file does not exist → BLOCKED: referenced ADR is missing.
- Auto-pass if story has an explicit "No ADR applies" N/A note.
- If
- TR-ID is valid and active: If the story contains a
TR-[system]-NNNreference, look it up in the TR registry loaded in Section 2.- If the ID exists and
status: active→ pass. - If the ID exists and
status: deprecatedorstatus: superseded-by: ...→ NEEDS WORK: the requirement was removed or replaced. Fix: update the story to reference the current requirement ID or remove if no longer applicable. - If the ID does not exist in the registry → NEEDS WORK: ID was not registered
(story may predate registry, or registry needs an
/architecture-reviewrun). - Auto-pass if the story has no TR-ID reference OR if the registry does not exist.
- If the ID exists and
- Manifest version is current: If the story has a
Manifest Version:date in its header ANDdocs/architecture/control-manifest.mdexists:- If story version matches current manifest
Manifest Version:→ pass. - If story version is older than current manifest → NEEDS WORK: new rules may
apply. Fix: review changed manifest rules, update story if any forbidden/required
entries changed, then update the story's
Manifest Version:to current. - Auto-pass if either the story has no
Manifest Version:field OR the manifest does not exist.
- If story version matches current manifest
- Engine notes present: For any post-cutoff engine API this story is likely to touch, implementation notes or a verification requirement are included. If the story clearly does not touch engine APIs (e.g., it is a pure data/config change), "N/A — no engine API involved" is acceptable.
- Control manifest rules noted: Relevant layer rules from the control
manifest are referenced, OR "N/A — manifest not yet created" is stated.
This item auto-passes if
docs/architecture/control-manifest.mddoes not exist yet (do not penalize stories written before the manifest was created).
Scope Clarity
- Estimate present: The story includes a size estimate (hours, points, or a t-shirt size). A story with no estimate cannot be planned.
- In-scope / Out-of-scope boundary stated: The story states what it does NOT include, either in an explicit Out of Scope section or in language that makes the boundary unambiguous. Without this, scope creep during implementation is likely.
- Story dependencies listed: If this story depends on other stories being DONE first, those story IDs are listed. If there are no dependencies, "None" is explicitly stated (not just omitted).
Open Questions
- No unresolved design questions: The story does not contain text flagged as "UNRESOLVED", "TBD", "TODO", "?", or equivalent markers in any acceptance criterion, implementation note, or rule statement.
- Dependency stories are not in DRAFT: For each story listed as a dependency, check if the file exists and does not have a DRAFT status. A story that depends on a DRAFT or missing story is BLOCKED, not just NEEDS WORK.
Asset References Check
- Referenced assets exist: Scan the story text for asset path patterns
(paths containing
assets/, or file extensions.png,.jpg,.svg,.wav,.ogg,.mp3,.glb,.gltf,.tres,.tscn,.res).- For each asset path found: use Glob to check whether the file exists.
- If any referenced asset does not exist: NEEDS WORK — note the missing path(s). (The story references assets that have not been created yet. Either remove the reference, create a placeholder, or mark it as an explicit dependency on an asset creation story.)
- If all referenced assets exist: note "Referenced assets verified: [count] found."
- If no asset paths are referenced in the story: note "No asset references found in story — skipping asset check." This item auto-passes.
- This is an existence-only check. Do not validate file format or content.
Definition of Done
- Minimum testable acceptance criteria by story type:
- Logic / Integration stories: at least 3
- Visual/Feel and UI stories: at least 2
- Config/Data stories: at least 1
Apply the threshold matching the story's
Type:field. If the story has fewer than the minimum, mark as NEEDS WORK.
- Performance budget noted if applicable: If this story touches any part of the gameplay loop, rendering, or physics, a performance budget or a "no performance impact expected — [reason]" note is present.
- Story Type declared: The story includes a
Type:field in its header identifying the test category (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data). Without this, test evidence requirements cannot be enforced at story close. Fix: AddType: [Logic|Integration|Visual/Feel|UI|Config/Data]to the story header. - Test evidence requirement is clear: If the Story Type is set, the story
includes a
## Test Evidencesection stating where evidence will be stored (test file path for Logic/Integration, or evidence doc path for Visual/Feel/UI). Fix: Add## Test Evidencewith the expected evidence location for the story's type.
4. Verdict Assignment
Assign one of three verdicts per story:
READY — All checklist items pass or have explicit N/A justifications. The story can be assigned immediately.
NEEDS WORK — One or more checklist items fail, but all dependency stories exist and are not DRAFT. The story can be fixed before assignment.
BLOCKED — One or more dependency stories are missing or in DRAFT state, OR a critical design question (flagged UNRESOLVED in a criterion or rule) has no owner. The story cannot be assigned until the blocker is resolved. Note: a story that is BLOCKED may also have NEEDS WORK items — list both.
5. Output Format
Single story output
## Story Readiness: [story title]
File: [path]
Verdict: [READY / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED]
### Passing Checks (N/[total])
[list passing items briefly]
### Gaps
- [Checklist item]: [exact description of what is missing or wrong]
Fix: [specific text needed to resolve this gap]
### Blockers (if BLOCKED)
- [What is blocking]: [story ID or design question that must resolve first]
Multiple story aggregate output
## Story Readiness Summary — [scope] — [date]
Ready: [N] stories
Needs Work: [N] stories
Blocked: [N] stories
### Ready Stories
- [story title] ([path])
### Needs Work
- [story title]: [primary gap — one line]
- [story title]: [primary gap — one line]
### Blocked Stories
- [story title]: Blocked by [story ID / design question]
---
[Full detail for each non-ready story follows, using the single-story format]
Sprint escalation
If the scope is sprint and any Must Have stories are NEEDS WORK or BLOCKED,
add a prominent warning at the top of the output:
WARNING: [N] Must Have stories are not implementation-ready.
[List them with their primary gap or blocker.]
Resolve these before the sprint begins or replan with `/sprint-plan update`.
6. Collaborative Protocol
This skill is read-only. It never proposes edits or asks to write files.
After reporting findings, offer:
"Would you like help filling in the gaps for any of these stories? I can draft the missing sections for your approval."
If the user says yes for a specific story, draft only the missing sections
in conversation. Do not use Write or Edit tools — the user (or
/create-stories) handles writing.
Redirect rules:
- If a story file does not exist at all: "This story file is missing entirely.
Run
/create-epics [layer]then/create-stories [epic-slug]to generate stories from the GDD and ADR." - If a story has no GDD reference and the work appears small: "This story has
no GDD reference. If the change is small (under ~4 hours), run
/quick-design [description]to create a Quick Design Spec, then reference that spec in the story." - If a story's scope has grown beyond its original sizing: "This story appears to have expanded in scope. Consider splitting it or escalating to the producer before implementation begins."
7. Next-Story Handoff
After completing a single-story readiness check (not all or sprint scope):
- Read the current sprint file from
production/sprints/(most recent). - Find stories that are:
- Status: READY or NOT STARTED
- Not the story just checked
- Not blocked by incomplete dependencies
- In the Must Have or Should Have tier
If any are found, surface up to 3:
### Other Ready Stories in This Sprint
1. [Story name] — [1-line description] — Est: [X hrs]
2. [Story name] — [1-line description] — Est: [X hrs]
Run `/story-readiness [path]` to validate before starting.
If no sprint file exists or no other ready stories are found, skip this section silently.
Phase 8: Director Gate — Story Readiness Review
Apply the review mode resolved in Phase 0 before spawning QL-STORY-READY:
solo→ skip. Note: "QL-STORY-READY skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to close.lean→ skip. Note: "QL-STORY-READY skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to close.full→ spawn as normal.
Spawn qa-lead via Task using gate QL-STORY-READY (.claude/docs/director-gates.md).
Pass the following context:
- Story title
- Acceptance criteria list (all items from the story's acceptance criteria section)
- Dependency status (all dependencies listed and their current state: exist / DRAFT / missing)
- Overall verdict (READY / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED) from Phase 4
Handle the verdict per standard rules in director-gates.md:
- ADEQUATE → story is cleared. Proceed to close.
- GAPS [list] → surface the specific gaps to the user via
AskUserQuestion: options:Update story with suggested gaps/Accept and proceed anyway/Discuss further. - INADEQUATE → surface the specific gaps; ask user whether to update the story or proceed anyway.
Recommended Next Steps
- Run
/dev-story [story-path]to begin implementation once the story is READY - Run
/story-readiness sprintto check all stories in the current sprint at once - Run
/create-stories [epic-slug]if a story file is missing entirely