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
5.3 KiB
Agent Test Spec: ai-programmer
Agent Summary
Domain: NPC behavior, state machines, pathfinding, perception systems, and AI decision-making. Does NOT own: player mechanics (gameplay-programmer), rendering or engine internals (engine-programmer), enemy behavior design (game-designer), navmesh authoring tools (tools-programmer). No gate IDs assigned.
Static Assertions (Structural)
description:field is present and domain-specific (references NPC behavior / AI systems)tools:list includes Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep- Model tier is
inherit— frontmattermodel:reads exactlyinherit(tiers:.claude/docs/model-tiers.md) - Agent definition does not claim authority over player mechanics or engine rendering
Test Cases
Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output
Input: "Implement a patrol-and-alert behavior tree for a guard NPC: patrol between waypoints, detect the player within 10 units, then enter an alert state and pursue." Expected behavior:
- Produces a behavior tree spec (nodes: Selector, Sequence, Leaf actions) plus corresponding code scaffold
- Defines clearly named states: Patrol, Alert, Pursue
- Uses a perception/detection check as a condition node, not inline in movement code
- Waypoints are data-driven (passed as a resource or export), not hardcoded positions
- Output includes doc comments on public API
Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects correctly
Input: "Build an editor tool that lets level designers paint navmesh regions and bake them." Expected behavior:
- Does NOT build the navmesh authoring tool
- Explicitly states this is outside its domain (navigation mesh authoring tools belong to tools-programmer)
- Redirects the request to
tools-programmer - Any input it gives the tool's owner is what its pathfinding needs from the baked navmesh (agent radius, area costs, dynamic-obstacle support) — not the tool itself
Case 3: Cross-domain coordination — level constraints
Input: "Design pathfinding for the warehouse level, but the level has narrow corridors that confuse the navmesh." Expected behavior:
- Does NOT unilaterally modify level layout or navmesh assets
- Coordinates with
level-designerto clarify navmesh requirements and corridor dimensions - Proposes a pathfinding approach (e.g., navmesh with agent radius tuning, flow fields) conditional on level geometry
- Documents assumptions and flags blockers clearly
Case 4: Performance work in its own domain — custom data structures
Input: "The pathfinding priority queue is the bottleneck; I need a custom binary heap implementation for performance." Expected behavior:
- Treats the heap as its own work: "Implement and optimize pathfinding" is its Key Responsibility, and the priority queue is part of the pathfinding code — it does not hand the heap to engine-programmer
- Proposes the heap (interface, expected operations and their cost) and asks before writing it
- Keeps the pathfinding update inside its 2ms-per-frame AI budget
- Involves
engine-programmeronly if the fix needs a change to a core engine system (its "must not" line), not for the heap itself
Case 5: Context pass — implements from the level layout and encounter spec
Input: Provided in context: a level layout document (from level-designer) marking patrol waypoints A–D and two choke points — a doorway at (12, 0) and a bridge at (40, 5) — and an encounter spec (from game-designer) stating "When alerted, guards fall back to the nearest choke point and hold it." Request: "Implement the patrol and alert response for this level's guards." Expected behavior:
- References the specific waypoints and choke point coordinates from the provided layout
- Implements the alert transition exactly as the encounter spec states (fall back to the nearest choke point and hold) — does NOT design its own threat response
- Keeps waypoints and choke points in data, not hardcoded positions
- Does not invent geometry or behavior the documents do not give; where they leave a case open (e.g., both choke points equally near), asks the spec owner instead of deciding
Protocol Compliance
- Stays within declared domain (NPC behavior, pathfinding, perception, state machines)
- Redirects out-of-domain requests to correct agent (tools-programmer for navmesh authoring tools, engine-programmer for core engine systems, game-designer for enemy behavior design)
- Returns structured findings (behavior tree specs, state machine diagrams, code scaffolds)
- Does not modify player mechanics files without explicit delegation
- Does its own pathfinding performance work, data structures included, and involves engine-programmer only for changes to core engine systems
- Uses data-driven NPC configuration (waypoints, detection radii) not hardcoded values
- Asks "May I write this to [filepath]?" naming the file before writing
Coverage Notes
- Behavior tree output (Case 1) should be validated by a unit test in
tests/unit/ai/ - Level-layout context (Case 5) verifies the agent implements the provided documents rather than inventing geometry or designing enemy behavior itself
- Pathfinding performance (Case 4) confirms the agent keeps work its Key Responsibilities assign it, and involves engine-programmer only for core engine changes