mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 04:51:46 +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>
144 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
144 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: team-combat
|
|
description: "Orchestrate the combat team: coordinates game-designer, gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to design, implement, and validate a combat feature end-to-end."
|
|
argument-hint: "[combat feature description] [--review full|lean|solo]"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Task, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite
|
|
model: sonnet
|
|
---
|
|
**Argument check:** If no combat feature description is provided, output:
|
|
> "Usage: `/team-combat [combat feature description]` — Provide a description of the combat feature to design and implement (e.g., `melee parry system`, `ranged weapon spread`)."
|
|
Then stop immediately without spawning any subagents or reading any files.
|
|
|
|
When this skill is invoked with a valid argument, orchestrate the combat team through a structured pipeline.
|
|
|
|
**Decision Points:** At each phase transition, use `AskUserQuestion` to present
|
|
the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
|
|
full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
|
|
The user must approve before moving to the next phase.
|
|
|
|
## Phase 0: Resolve Review Mode
|
|
|
|
1. If `--review [mode]` was passed as an argument, use that mode.
|
|
2. Else read `production/review-mode.txt` — use whatever is written there.
|
|
3. Else default to `lean`.
|
|
|
|
Modes:
|
|
- `full` — spawn all director and lead gates as described
|
|
- `lean` — skip director gates unless they are PHASE-GATE type (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE)
|
|
- `solo` — skip all director gate spawning entirely; run the skill without any agent gates
|
|
|
|
Store the resolved mode for use in all subsequent phases.
|
|
|
|
## Team Composition
|
|
- **game-designer** — Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge cases
|
|
- **gameplay-programmer** — Implement the core gameplay code
|
|
- **ai-programmer** — Implement NPC/enemy AI behavior for the feature
|
|
- **technical-artist** — Create VFX, shader effects, and visual feedback
|
|
- **sound-designer** — Define audio events, impact sounds, and ambient combat audio
|
|
- **engine specialist** (primary) — Validate architecture and implementation patterns are idiomatic for the engine (read from `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` Engine Specialists section)
|
|
- **qa-tester** — Write test cases and validate the implementation
|
|
|
|
## How to Delegate
|
|
|
|
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
|
|
- `subagent_type: game-designer` — Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge cases
|
|
- `subagent_type: gameplay-programmer` — Implement the core gameplay code
|
|
- `subagent_type: ai-programmer` — Implement NPC/enemy AI behavior
|
|
- `subagent_type: technical-artist` — Create VFX, shader effects, visual feedback
|
|
- `subagent_type: sound-designer` — Define audio events, impact sounds, ambient audio
|
|
- `subagent_type: [primary engine specialist]` — Engine idiom validation for architecture and implementation
|
|
- `subagent_type: qa-tester` — Write test cases and validate implementation
|
|
|
|
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (design doc path, relevant code files, constraints). Launch independent agents in parallel where the pipeline allows it (e.g., Phase 3 agents can run simultaneously).
|
|
|
|
## Pipeline
|
|
|
|
### Phase 1: Design
|
|
Delegate to **game-designer**:
|
|
- Create or update the design document in `design/gdd/` covering: mechanic overview, player fantasy, detailed rules, formulas with variable definitions, edge cases, dependencies, tuning knobs with safe ranges, and acceptance criteria
|
|
- Output: completed design document
|
|
|
|
### Phase 2: Architecture
|
|
Delegate to **gameplay-programmer** (with **ai-programmer** if AI is involved):
|
|
- Review the design document
|
|
- Design the code architecture: class structure, interfaces, data flow
|
|
- Identify integration points with existing systems
|
|
- Output: architecture sketch with file list and interface definitions
|
|
|
|
Then spawn the **primary engine specialist** to validate the proposed architecture:
|
|
- Is the class/node/component structure idiomatic for the pinned engine? (e.g., Godot node hierarchy, Unity MonoBehaviour vs DOTS, Unreal Actor/Component design)
|
|
- Are there engine-native systems that should be used instead of custom implementations?
|
|
- Any proposed APIs that are deprecated or changed in the pinned engine version?
|
|
- Output: engine architecture notes — incorporate into the architecture before Phase 3 begins
|
|
|
|
Use `AskUserQuestion`:
|
|
- Prompt: "Architecture sketch complete. Approve to proceed with parallel implementation."
|
|
- Options:
|
|
- `[A] Proceed — spawn implementation agents (gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer)`
|
|
- `[B] Revise the architecture first — I'll describe what needs to change`
|
|
- `[C] Stop here — I'll continue later`
|
|
|
|
Only spawn implementation agents if user selects [A].
|
|
|
|
### Phase 3: Implementation (parallel where possible)
|
|
Delegate in parallel:
|
|
- **gameplay-programmer**: Implement core combat mechanic code
|
|
- **ai-programmer**: Implement AI behaviors (if the feature involves NPC reactions)
|
|
- **technical-artist**: Create VFX and shader effects
|
|
- **sound-designer**: Define audio event list and mixing notes
|
|
|
|
### Phase 4: Integration
|
|
- Wire together gameplay code, AI, VFX, and audio
|
|
- Ensure all tuning knobs are exposed and data-driven
|
|
- Verify the feature works with existing combat systems
|
|
|
|
### Phase 5: Validation
|
|
Delegate to **qa-tester**:
|
|
- Write test cases from the acceptance criteria
|
|
- Test all edge cases documented in the design
|
|
- Verify performance impact is within budget
|
|
- File bug reports for any issues found
|
|
|
|
### Phase 6: Sign-off
|
|
- Collect results from all team members
|
|
- Report feature status: COMPLETE / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED
|
|
- List any outstanding issues and their assigned owners
|
|
|
|
## Error Recovery Protocol
|
|
|
|
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
|
|
|
|
1. **Surface immediately**: Report "[AgentName]: BLOCKED — [reason]" to the user before continuing to dependent phases
|
|
2. **Assess dependencies**: Check whether the blocked agent's output is required by subsequent phases. If yes, do not proceed past that dependency point without user input.
|
|
3. **Offer options** via AskUserQuestion with choices:
|
|
- Skip this agent and note the gap in the final report
|
|
- Retry with narrower scope
|
|
- Stop here and resolve the blocker first
|
|
4. **Always produce a partial report** — output whatever was completed. Never discard work because one agent blocked.
|
|
|
|
Common blockers:
|
|
- Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
|
|
- ADR status is Proposed → do not implement; run `/architecture-decision` first
|
|
- Scope too large → split into two stories via `/create-stories`
|
|
- Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess
|
|
|
|
## File Write Protocol
|
|
|
|
All file writes (design documents, implementation files, test cases) are
|
|
delegated to sub-agents spawned via Task. Each sub-agent enforces the
|
|
"May I write to [path]?" protocol. This orchestrator does not write files directly.
|
|
|
|
## Output
|
|
|
|
A summary report covering: design completion status, implementation status per team member, test results, and any open issues.
|
|
|
|
Verdict: **COMPLETE** — combat feature designed, implemented, and validated.
|
|
Verdict: **BLOCKED** — one or more phases could not complete; partial report produced with unresolved items listed.
|
|
|
|
## Next Steps
|
|
|
|
- Run `/code-review` on the implemented combat code before closing stories.
|
|
- Run `/balance-check` to validate combat formulas and tuning values.
|
|
- Run `/team-polish` if VFX, audio, or performance polish is needed.
|