mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 01:37:05 +00:00
DonchitosandClaude Opus 5.5
be8993bbc5
Fix release for 1.1.2: the 14 longest skills keep their later phases after a compaction, a question nobody answered is never taken as an answer, settings read the same from a subfolder, the commit check works for a project in a subfolder of a larger repository, every skill opens with a title, and the shipped allow rules no longer approve deleting a branch or writing files without asking. Details in CHANGELOG.md; upgrade steps in UPGRADING.md (v1.1.2 → v1.1.3). Refs #83 Refs #133 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185en4t76fPn7315q4c3nko
110 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
110 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
# /create-architecture — Phases 7 and 7b: Write and Sign-Off
|
||
|
||
> Part of `/create-architecture`. `SKILL.md` names when to read this file; the settings it
|
||
> resolved and the rules under its later headings still apply here.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 7: Write the Master Architecture Document
|
||
|
||
**In this file:**
|
||
|
||
- Phase 7: the master architecture document template, then the write
|
||
- Phase 7b: Technical Director Sign-Off + Lead Programmer Feasibility Review: review mode check, presenting both assessments, recording the sign-off
|
||
|
||
Once all sections are approved, write the complete document to
|
||
`docs/architecture/architecture.md`.
|
||
|
||
In an update (Phase 0e `[A]`, or a focus-area argument), write only the chosen
|
||
sections instead, replacing each in place with `Edit`, and raise `Version`; the
|
||
ask below then names those sections and the version change.
|
||
|
||
Display a one-paragraph summary of what the document will contain (layers, modules, data flows, ADR gaps). Then use `AskUserQuestion`:
|
||
- "All sections approved. May I write the master architecture document?"
|
||
- [A] Yes — write to `docs/architecture/architecture.md` now
|
||
- [B] Show me the full draft inline first, then ask again
|
||
- [C] Not yet — I have more changes to discuss
|
||
|
||
The document structure:
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
# [Game Name] — Master Architecture
|
||
|
||
## Document Status
|
||
- Version: [N]
|
||
- Last Updated: [date]
|
||
- Engine: [name + version]
|
||
- GDDs Covered: [list]
|
||
- ADRs Referenced: [list]
|
||
|
||
## Engine Knowledge Gap Summary
|
||
[Condensed from Phase 0d inventory — HIGH/MEDIUM risk domains and their implications]
|
||
|
||
## System Layer Map
|
||
[From Phase 1]
|
||
|
||
## Module Ownership
|
||
[From Phase 2]
|
||
|
||
## Data Flow
|
||
[From Phase 3]
|
||
|
||
## API Boundaries
|
||
[From Phase 4]
|
||
|
||
## ADR Audit
|
||
[From Phase 5]
|
||
|
||
## Required ADRs
|
||
[From Phase 6]
|
||
|
||
## Architecture Principles
|
||
[3-5 key principles that govern all technical decisions for this project,
|
||
derived from the game concept, GDDs, and technical preferences]
|
||
|
||
## Open Questions
|
||
[Decisions deferred — must be resolved before the relevant layer is built]
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Phase 7b: Technical Director Sign-Off + Lead Programmer Feasibility Review
|
||
|
||
After writing the master architecture document, perform an explicit sign-off before handoff.
|
||
|
||
**Review mode check** — apply before spawning either gate:
|
||
- `solo` → skip both. Note: "TD-ARCHITECTURE and LP-FEASIBILITY skipped — Solo mode." Go to Step 4 and record both as skipped, then Phase 8.
|
||
- `lean` → skip both (neither is a PHASE-GATE). Note: "TD-ARCHITECTURE and LP-FEASIBILITY skipped — Lean mode." Go to Step 4 and record both as skipped, then Phase 8.
|
||
- `full` → spawn both, in parallel.
|
||
|
||
**Step 1 — Spawn `technical-director` via `Agent` using gate TD-ARCHITECTURE (`.claude/docs/director-gates/td-architecture.md`):**
|
||
|
||
Pass: the architecture document path (`docs/architecture/architecture.md`), the Technical Requirements Baseline (TR-IDs and count), the ADR list with statuses, and the Engine Knowledge Gap Inventory from Phase 0d. Issue this call and Step 2's before waiting for either result.
|
||
|
||
**Step 2 — Spawn `lead-programmer` via `Agent` using gate LP-FEASIBILITY (`.claude/docs/director-gates/lp-feasibility.md`):**
|
||
|
||
Pass: architecture document path, technical requirements baseline summary, ADR list.
|
||
|
||
**Step 3 — Present both assessments to the user:**
|
||
|
||
Show the TD-ARCHITECTURE verdict (APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT) and the LP-FEASIBILITY verdict (FEASIBLE / CONCERNS / INFEASIBLE) side by side.
|
||
|
||
Use `AskUserQuestion` — "Technical Director and Lead Programmer have reviewed the architecture. How would you like to proceed?"
|
||
Options: `Accept — proceed to handoff` / `Revise flagged items first` / `Discuss specific concerns`.
|
||
If either verdict is REJECT or INFEASIBLE, do not offer `Accept` — the blockers are revised (or discussed) first.
|
||
`Revise flagged items first` re-drafts each flagged section and shows it for approval as in Phases 1–4; the revised document is then written once, through Phase 7's ask, and Step 4 records `REVISED after [verdict]`.
|
||
A `NOT ASSESSED` answer is never recorded as `APPROVE` or `FEASIBLE`: Step 4 records it with the input that was missing (`director-gates.md`).
|
||
|
||
**Step 4 — Record sign-off in the architecture document:**
|
||
|
||
Update the Document Status section:
|
||
```
|
||
- TD-ARCHITECTURE: [date] — APPROVE / CONCERNS (accepted) / REVISED after CONCERNS / REVISED after REJECT / NOT ASSESSED — [missing input] / skipped — [mode] mode
|
||
- LP-FEASIBILITY: [date] — FEASIBLE / CONCERNS (accepted) / REVISED after CONCERNS / REVISED after INFEASIBLE / NOT ASSESSED — [missing input] / skipped — [mode] mode
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Show the proposed Document Status block inline, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
|
||
- "May I update the Document Status section with the sign-off results?"
|
||
- [A] Yes — apply to `docs/architecture/architecture.md`
|
||
- [B] Not yet — I want to revisit the concerns first
|
||
|
||
---
|