Files
Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/tech-debt/SKILL.md
Donchitos 984023ddac Release v1.0.0 — concept-prototype/vertical-slice split, workflow restructure, polish (#50)
* 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>
2026-05-13 20:15:08 +10:00

5.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model
name description argument-hint user-invocable allowed-tools model
tech-debt Track, categorize, and prioritize technical debt across the codebase. Scans for debt indicators, maintains a debt register, and recommends repayment scheduling. [scan|add|prioritize|report] true Read, Glob, Grep, Write, AskUserQuestion sonnet

Phase 1: Parse Subcommand

Determine the mode from the argument:

  • scan — Scan the codebase for tech debt indicators
  • add — Add a new tech debt entry manually
  • prioritize — Re-prioritize the existing debt register
  • report — Generate a summary report of current debt status

If no subcommand is provided, output usage and stop. Verdict: FAIL — missing required subcommand.


Phase 2A: Scan Mode

Search the codebase for debt indicators:

  • TODO comments (count and categorize)
  • FIXME comments (these are bugs disguised as debt)
  • HACK comments (workarounds that need proper solutions)
  • @deprecated markers
  • Duplicated code blocks (similar patterns in multiple files)
  • Files over 500 lines (potential god objects)
  • Functions over 50 lines (potential complexity)

Categorize each finding:

  • Architecture Debt: Wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues
  • Code Quality Debt: Duplication, complexity, naming, missing types
  • Test Debt: Missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases
  • Documentation Debt: Missing docs, outdated docs, undocumented APIs
  • Dependency Debt: Outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts
  • Performance Debt: Known slow paths, unoptimized queries, memory issues

Present the findings to the user.

Ask: "May I write these findings to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"

If yes, update the register (append new entries, do not overwrite existing ones). Verdict: COMPLETE — scan findings written to register.

If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.


Phase 2B: Add Mode

Ask the user for the description, affected files, and impact if left unfixed (plain text prompts).

Then use AskUserQuestion to collect the category:

  • Prompt: "What category does this tech debt belong to?"
  • Options:
    • [A] Architecture Debt — wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues
    • [B] Code Quality Debt — duplication, complexity, naming, missing types
    • [C] Test Debt — missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases
    • [D] Documentation Debt — missing/outdated docs, undocumented APIs
    • [E] Dependency Debt — outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts
    • [F] Performance Debt — known slow paths, memory issues, unoptimized queries

Then use AskUserQuestion to collect the estimated fix effort:

  • Prompt: "What is the estimated effort to fix this item?"
  • Options:
    • [A] S — Small (under 1 day)
    • [B] M — Medium (13 days)
    • [C] L — Large (37 days)
    • [D] XL — Extra Large (over 1 week)

Present the complete new entry to the user.

Ask: "May I append this entry to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"

If yes, append the entry. Verdict: COMPLETE — entry added to register.

If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.


Phase 2C: Prioritize Mode

Read the debt register at docs/tech-debt-register.md.

Score each item by: (impact_if_unfixed × frequency_of_encounter) / fix_effort

Re-sort the register by priority score and recommend which items to include in the next sprint.

Present the re-prioritized register to the user.

Ask: "May I write the re-prioritized register back to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"

If yes, write the updated file. Verdict: COMPLETE — register re-prioritized and saved.

If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.


Phase 2D: Report Mode

Read the debt register. Generate summary statistics:

  • Total items by category
  • Total estimated fix effort
  • Items added vs resolved since last report
  • Trending direction (growing / stable / shrinking)

Flag any items that have been in the register for more than 3 sprints.

Output the report to the user. This mode is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: COMPLETE — debt report generated.


Phase 3: Next Steps

  • Run /sprint-plan to schedule high-priority debt items into the next sprint.
  • Run /tech-debt report at the start of each sprint to track debt trends over time.

Debt Register Format

## Technical Debt Register
Last updated: [Date]
Total items: [N] | Estimated total effort: [T-shirt sizes summed]

| ID | Category | Description | Files | Effort | Impact | Priority | Added | Sprint |
|----|----------|-------------|-------|--------|--------|----------|-------|--------|
| TD-001 | [Cat] | [Description] | [files] | [S/M/L/XL] | [Low/Med/High/Critical] | [Score] | [Date] | [Sprint to fix or "Backlog"] |

Rules

  • Tech debt is not inherently bad — it is a tool. The register tracks conscious decisions.
  • Every debt entry must explain WHY it was accepted (deadline, prototype, missing info)
  • "Scan" should run at least once per sprint to catch new debt
  • Items older than 3 sprints without action should either be fixed or consciously accepted with a documented reason