mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 01:37:05 +00:00
DonchitosandClaude Opus 5
d05699707f
`project.yaml` at the repo root is now the single source of truth for a project's configuration, replacing `production/stage.txt`, `production/review-mode.txt` and `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` (all three still read as a fallback; nothing is force-deleted). **`modes.rigor` — one question instead of six.** `minimal`, `standard` or `full` fronts six knobs: `modes.workflow`, `docs.density`, `qa.level`, `modes.story_granularity`, `modes.review_mode` and `team.size`. It defaults to `minimal`, which is a change from 1.0's behaviour: the heavier tier was measured costing several times more to reach working code without producing a better result, and returning nothing when a fresh developer inherited the project. Pin `modes.rigor: standard` to keep 1.0's process level. Also in this release: - `/settings` to view or change any setting, and `project.local.yaml` for per-developer preferences that should not be committed. - `system_overrides` to hold one system to a higher standard than the rest of the project, and `testing.strict` to set per test type whether missing evidence blocks a story or warns. - A story that changes anything the player sees is not closed until the game has been launched, observed, and a screenshot retained in `production/qa/evidence/`. A parse check is not a run. This holds at every rigor level, including `minimal`, where automated tests are waived but the look is not. - The code root is engine-specific and enforced as such: Godot `src/`, Unity `Assets/`, Unreal `Source/<Module>/`. Two of the three will not build a project laid out any other way. - Migration tooling for existing projects: `.claude/scripts/migrate-v1-config.sh` converts a 1.0 layout, non-destructively by default, with a report to review before `--finalize` deletes anything. - Ask-before-write holds regardless of personal automation settings. Upgrading from 1.0 or earlier: see UPGRADING.md. Full list of changes: CHANGELOG.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016xvzG3i7pWQg4LjyDwWMXd
27 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
27 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
> Gate definition. The spawning skill passes this file's path to the director agent; the AGENT reads it — the parent session should not.
|
|
|
|
# TD-MANIFEST — Control Manifest Review
|
|
|
|
Agent: `technical-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Architecture, engine risk, performance
|
|
|
|
**Trigger**: After control-manifest rules are extracted and previewed
|
|
(`/create-control-manifest` Phase 4), before the manifest file is written
|
|
|
|
**Context to pass**:
|
|
- The Control Manifest Preview from Phase 4 (rule counts per layer, full extracted rule list)
|
|
- The list of ADRs covered
|
|
- Engine version
|
|
- Any rules sourced from `technical-preferences.md` or engine reference docs
|
|
|
|
**Prompt**:
|
|
> "Review this control manifest before it is written. Are all mandatory ADR
|
|
> patterns captured and accurately stated? Are the forbidden approaches complete
|
|
> and correctly attributed to their source ADR? Were any rules added that lack a
|
|
> source ADR or preference document — that is, invented rather than extracted?
|
|
> Are the performance guardrails consistent with the constraints the ADRs
|
|
> actually set? Return APPROVE, CONCERNS [list the specific rules to revise], or
|
|
> REJECT [rules that are wrong or unsourced and must be fixed before the manifest
|
|
> is written]."
|
|
|
|
**Verdicts**: APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
|