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
32 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
32 lines
1.7 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-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
|