mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 09:58:36 +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
33 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
33 lines
1.9 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-PHASE-GATE — Technical Readiness at Phase Transition
|
|
|
|
Agent: `technical-director` | Model tier: Opus | Domain: Architecture, engine risk, performance
|
|
|
|
**Trigger**: At `/gate-check` when `modes.workflow` is `standard` or `full` — the panel narrows by workflow; spawn in parallel with the rest of it (PR-PHASE-GATE, plus CD-PHASE-GATE and AD-PHASE-GATE at `full`)
|
|
|
|
**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)
|
|
- Architecture document path (if exists)
|
|
- Engine reference path
|
|
- ADR list
|
|
|
|
**Prompt**:
|
|
> "Review the current project state for [target phase] gate readiness from a
|
|
> technical direction perspective, judged against what this gate requires at this
|
|
> tier (the required-artifacts list you were given), not what a later phase will
|
|
> need. Is the technical groundwork this phase requires in place and sound —
|
|
> entering Systems Design, is the concept feasible on the chosen engine; entering
|
|
> Technical Setup, do the systems index and GDDs give enough to architect from;
|
|
> entering Pre-Production, is the architecture sound and are the Foundation-layer
|
|
> decisions complete enough to begin implementation; entering Production or
|
|
> later, is the architecture holding up in the build? Are the high-risk engine
|
|
> domains addressed to the depth this phase requires? Are performance budgets
|
|
> realistic and documented where this phase requires them?
|
|
> 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 [list], or NOT READY [blockers]."
|
|
|
|
**Verdicts**: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY
|