mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 01:37:05 +00:00
DonchitosandClaude Opus 5.5
b21fa0f7f2
Fix release for 1.1.1: the minimal path end to end, engine commands that run on Godot, Unity and Unreal, hook warnings you can see, and verdicts that say when they could not check. Details in CHANGELOG.md; upgrade steps in UPGRADING.md (v1.1.1 → v1.1.2). Fixes #67 Fixes #131 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuJn2FdynEybfL5KC697nJ
32 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
32 lines
2.0 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.
|
|
|
|
# AD-PHASE-GATE — Visual Readiness at Phase Transition
|
|
|
|
Agent: `art-director` | Model tier: session (inherit) | Domain: Visual identity, art bible, visual production readiness
|
|
|
|
**Trigger**: At `/gate-check` when `modes.workflow` is `full` — the panel narrows by workflow, and only the full panel includes art-director; spawn in parallel with CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, and PR-PHASE-GATE
|
|
|
|
**Context to pass**:
|
|
- Target phase name and the resolved `workflow` tier
|
|
- The target gate's required and recommended artifacts at the resolved tier (from `/gate-check`'s loaded gate file)
|
|
- List of all art/visual artifacts present (file paths)
|
|
- Visual identity anchor from `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (if present; if there is no `design/gdd/game-concept.md`, the "Art & audio direction" line of `design/game-brief.md`)
|
|
- Art bible path if it exists (`design/art/art-bible.md`)
|
|
|
|
**Prompt**:
|
|
> "Review the current project state for [target phase] gate readiness from a visual
|
|
> direction perspective, judged against what this gate requires at this tier (the
|
|
> required-artifacts list you were given). Is the visual identity established and
|
|
> documented at the level this phase requires? Are the visual artifacts this phase
|
|
> requires in place? Would visual teams be able to begin their work without
|
|
> visual direction gaps that cause costly rework later? Are there visual
|
|
> decisions that are being deferred past their latest responsible moment?
|
|
> A required artifact passed as "none" is a finding; one passed as "not expected
|
|
> before [phase]" or "not required at `workflow: [tier]`" is not a finding.
|
|
> Return READY, CONCERNS [specific visual direction gaps that could cause
|
|
> production rework], or NOT READY [visual blockers that must exist before this
|
|
> phase can succeed — specify what artifact is missing and why it matters at
|
|
> this stage]."
|
|
|
|
**Verdicts**: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY
|