Files
Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/ux-review/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

10 KiB

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model, agent
name description argument-hint user-invocable allowed-tools model agent
ux-review Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps. [file-path or 'all' or 'hud' or 'patterns'] true Read, Glob, Grep sonnet ux-designer

Overview

Validates UX design documents before they enter the implementation pipeline. Acts as the quality gate between UX Design and Visual Design/Implementation in the /team-ui pipeline.

Run this skill:

  • After completing a UX spec with /ux-design
  • Before handing off to ui-programmer or art-director
  • Before the Pre-Production to Production gate check (which requires key screens to have reviewed UX specs)
  • After major revisions to a UX spec

Verdict levels:

  • APPROVED — spec is complete, consistent, and implementation-ready
  • NEEDS REVISION — specific gaps found; fix before handoff but not a full redesign
  • MAJOR REVISION NEEDED — fundamental issues with scope, player need, or completeness; needs significant rework

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

  • Specific file path (e.g., /ux-review design/ux/inventory.md): validate that one document
  • all: find all files in design/ux/ and validate each
  • hud: validate design/ux/hud.md specifically
  • patterns: validate design/ux/interaction-patterns.md specifically
  • No argument: ask the user which spec to validate

For all, output a summary table first (file | verdict | primary issue) then full detail for each.


Phase 2: Load Cross-Reference Context

Before validating any spec, load:

  1. Input & Platform config: Read .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md and extract ## Input & Platform. This is the authoritative source for which input methods the game supports — use it to drive the Input Method Coverage checks in Phase 3A, not the spec's own header. If unconfigured, fall back to the spec header.
  2. The accessibility tier committed to in design/accessibility-requirements.md (if it exists)
  3. The interaction pattern library at design/ux/interaction-patterns.md (if it exists)
  4. The GDDs referenced in the spec's header (read their UI Requirements sections)
  5. The player journey map at design/player-journey.md (if it exists) for context-arrival validation

Phase 3A: UX Spec Validation Checklist

Run all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.

Completeness (required sections)

  • Document header present with Status, Author, Platform Target
  • Purpose & Player Need — has a player-perspective need statement (not developer-perspective)
  • Player Context on Arrival — describes player's state and prior activity
  • Navigation Position — shows where screen sits in hierarchy
  • Entry & Exit Points — all entry sources and exit destinations documented
  • Layout Specification — zones defined, component inventory table present
  • States & Variants — at minimum: loading, empty/populated, and error states documented
  • Interaction Map — covers all target input methods (check platform target in header)
  • Data Requirements — every displayed data element has a source system and owner
  • Events Fired — every player action has a corresponding event or null explanation
  • Transitions & Animations — at least enter/exit transitions specified
  • Accessibility Requirements — screen-level requirements present
  • Localization Considerations — max character counts for text elements
  • Acceptance Criteria — at least 5 specific testable criteria

Quality Checks

Player Need Clarity

  • Purpose is written from player perspective, not system/developer perspective
  • Player goal on arrival is unambiguous ("The player arrives wanting to ___")
  • The player context on arrival is specific (not just "they opened the inventory")

Completeness of States

  • Error state is documented (not just happy path)
  • Empty state is documented (no data scenario)
  • Loading state is documented if the screen fetches async data
  • Any state with a timer or auto-dismiss is documented with duration

Input Method Coverage

  • If platform includes PC: keyboard-only navigation is fully specified
  • If platform includes console/gamepad: d-pad navigation and face button mapping documented
  • No interaction requires mouse-like precision on gamepad
  • Focus order is defined (Tab order for keyboard, d-pad order for gamepad)

Data Architecture

  • No data element has "UI" listed as the owner (UI must not own game state)
  • Update frequency is specified for all real-time data (not just "realtime" — what triggers update?)
  • Null handling is specified for all data elements (what shows when data is unavailable?)

Accessibility

  • Accessibility tier from accessibility-requirements.md is matched or exceeded
  • If Basic tier: no color-only information indicators
  • If Standard tier+: focus order documented, text contrast ratios specified
  • If Comprehensive tier+: screen reader announcements for key state changes
  • Colorblind check: any color-coded elements have non-color alternatives

GDD Alignment

  • Every GDD UI Requirement referenced in the header is addressed in this spec
  • No UI element displays or modifies game state without a corresponding GDD requirement
  • No GDD UI Requirement is missing from this spec (cross-check the referenced GDD sections)

Pattern Library Consistency

  • All interactive components reference the pattern library (or note they are new patterns)
  • No pattern behavior is re-specified from scratch if it already exists in the pattern library
  • Any new patterns invented in this spec are flagged for addition to the pattern library

Localization

  • Character limit warnings present for all text-heavy elements
  • Any layout-critical text has been flagged for 40% expansion accommodation

Acceptance Criteria Quality

  • Criteria are specific enough for a QA tester who hasn't seen the design docs
  • Performance criterion present (screen opens within Xms)
  • Resolution criterion present
  • No criterion requires reading another document to evaluate

Phase 3B: HUD Validation Checklist

Run all checks against a hud-design.md-based document.

Completeness

  • HUD Philosophy defined
  • Information Architecture table covers ALL systems with UI Requirements in GDDs
  • Layout Zones defined with safe zone margins for all target platforms
  • Every HUD element has a full specification (zone, visibility trigger, data source, priority)
  • HUD States by Gameplay Context covers at minimum: exploration, combat, dialogue/cutscene, paused
  • Visual Budget defined (max simultaneous elements, max screen %)
  • Platform Adaptation covers all target platforms
  • Tuning Knobs present for player-adjustable elements

Quality Checks

  • No HUD element covers the center play area without a visibility rule to hide it
  • Every information item that exists in any GDD is either in the HUD or explicitly categorized as "hidden/demand"
  • All color-coded HUD elements have colorblind variants
  • HUD elements in the Feedback & Notification section have queue/priority behavior defined
  • Visual Budget compliance: total simultaneous elements is within budget

GDD Alignment

  • All systems in design/gdd/systems-index.md with UI category have representation in HUD (or justified absence)

Phase 3C: Pattern Library Validation Checklist

  • Pattern catalog index is current (matches actual patterns in document)
  • All standard control patterns are specified: button variants, toggle, slider, dropdown, list, grid, modal, dialog, toast, tooltip, progress bar, input field, tab bar, scroll
  • All game-specific patterns needed by current UX specs are present
  • Each pattern has: When to Use, When NOT to Use, full state specification, accessibility spec, implementation notes
  • Animation Standards table present
  • Sound Standards table present
  • No conflicting behaviors between patterns (e.g., "Back" behavior consistent across all navigation patterns)

Phase 4: Output the Verdict

## UX Review: [Document Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: ux-review skill
**Document**: [file path]
**Platform Target**: [from header]
**Accessibility Tier**: [from header or accessibility-requirements.md]

### Completeness: [X/Y sections present]
- [x] Purpose & Player Need
- [ ] States & Variants — MISSING: error state not documented

### Quality Issues: [N found]
1. **[Issue title]** [BLOCKING / ADVISORY]
   - What's wrong: [specific description]
   - Where: [section name]
   - Fix: [specific action to take]

### GDD Alignment: [ALIGNED / GAPS FOUND]
- GDD [name] UI Requirements — [X/Y requirements covered]
- Missing: [list any uncovered GDD requirements]

### Accessibility: [COMPLIANT / GAPS / NON-COMPLIANT]
- Target tier: [tier]
- [list specific accessibility findings]

### Pattern Library: [CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENCIES FOUND]
- [findings]

### Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED
**Blocking issues**: [N] — must be resolved before implementation
**Advisory issues**: [N] — recommended but not blocking

[For APPROVED]: This spec is ready for handoff to `/team-ui` Phase 2
(Visual Design).

[For NEEDS REVISION]: Address the [N] blocking issues above, then re-run
`/ux-review`.

[For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]: The spec has fundamental gaps in [areas].
Recommend returning to `/ux-design` to rework [sections].

Phase 5: Collaborative Protocol

This skill is READ-ONLY — it never edits or writes files. It reports findings only.

After delivering the verdict:

  • For APPROVED: suggest running /team-ui to begin implementation coordination
  • For NEEDS REVISION: offer to help fix specific gaps ("Would you like me to help draft the missing error state?") — but do not auto-fix; wait for user instruction
  • For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest returning to /ux-design with the specific sections to rework

Never block the user from proceeding — the verdict is advisory. Document risks, present findings, let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns. A user who chooses to proceed with a NEEDS REVISION spec takes on the documented risk.