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
1.7 KiB
Gate definition. The spawning skill passes this file's path to the director agent; the AGENT reads it — the parent session should not.
TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY — System Boundary Architecture Review
Agent: technical-director | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Architecture, engine risk, performance
Trigger: After /map-systems Phase 3 dependency mapping is agreed but before
GDD authoring begins — validates that the system structure is architecturally
sound before teams invest in writing GDDs against it
Context to pass:
- Systems index path (or the dependency map summary if index not yet written)
- Layer assignments (Foundation / Core / Feature / Presentation / Polish)
- The full dependency graph (what each system depends on)
- Any bottleneck systems flagged (many dependents)
- Any circular dependencies found and their proposed resolutions
Prompt:
"Review this systems decomposition from an architectural perspective before GDD authoring begins. Are the system boundaries clean — does each system own a distinct concern with minimal overlap? Are there God Object risks (systems doing too much)? Does the dependency ordering create implementation-sequencing problems? Are there implicit shared-state problems in the proposed boundaries that will cause tight coupling when implemented? Are any Foundation-layer systems actually dependent on Feature-layer systems (inverted dependency)? Return APPROVE (boundaries are architecturally sound — proceed to GDD authoring), CONCERNS [specific boundary issues to address in the GDDs themselves], or REJECT [fundamental boundary problems — the system structure will cause architectural issues and must be restructured before any GDD is written]."
Verdicts: APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT