mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 09:58:36 +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
133 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
133 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: estimate
|
|
description: "Estimate task effort from complexity, dependencies, velocity, risk. Structured estimate with confidence levels."
|
|
argument-hint: "[task-description]"
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
|
|
model: sonnet
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Understand the Task
|
|
|
|
Read the task description from the argument. If the description is too vague to estimate meaningfully, ask for clarification before proceeding.
|
|
|
|
Read CLAUDE.md for project context: tech stack, coding standards, architectural patterns, and any estimation guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Read relevant design documents from `design/gdd/` if the task relates to a documented feature or system.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Scan Affected Code
|
|
|
|
Identify files and modules that would need to change:
|
|
|
|
- Assess complexity (size, dependency count, cyclomatic complexity)
|
|
- Identify integration points with other systems
|
|
- Check for existing test coverage in the affected areas
|
|
- Read past sprint data from `production/sprints/` for similar completed tasks and historical velocity
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Analyze Complexity Factors
|
|
|
|
**Code Complexity:**
|
|
- Lines of code in affected files
|
|
- Number of dependencies and coupling level
|
|
- Whether this touches core/engine code vs leaf/feature code
|
|
- Whether existing patterns can be followed or new patterns are needed
|
|
|
|
**Scope:**
|
|
- Number of systems touched
|
|
- New code vs modification of existing code
|
|
- Amount of new test coverage required
|
|
- Data migration or configuration changes needed
|
|
|
|
**Risk:**
|
|
- New technology or unfamiliar libraries
|
|
- Unclear or ambiguous requirements
|
|
- Dependencies on unfinished work
|
|
- Cross-system integration complexity
|
|
- Performance sensitivity
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Generate the Estimate
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Task Estimate: [Task Name]
|
|
Generated: [Date]
|
|
|
|
### Task Description
|
|
[Restate the task clearly in 1-2 sentences]
|
|
|
|
### Complexity Assessment
|
|
|
|
| Factor | Assessment | Notes |
|
|
|--------|-----------|-------|
|
|
| Systems affected | [List] | [Core, gameplay, UI, etc.] |
|
|
| Files likely modified | [Count] | [Key files listed below] |
|
|
| New code vs modification | [Ratio] | |
|
|
| Integration points | [Count] | [Which systems interact] |
|
|
| Test coverage needed | [Low / Medium / High] | |
|
|
| Existing patterns available | [Yes / Partial / No] | |
|
|
|
|
**Key files likely affected:**
|
|
- `[path/to/file1]` -- [what changes here]
|
|
|
|
### Effort Estimate
|
|
|
|
| Scenario | Days | Assumption |
|
|
|----------|------|------------|
|
|
| Optimistic | [X] | Everything goes right, no surprises |
|
|
| Expected | [Y] | Normal pace, minor issues, one round of review |
|
|
| Pessimistic | [Z] | Significant unknowns surface, blocked for a day |
|
|
|
|
**Recommended budget: [Y days]**
|
|
|
|
### Confidence: [High / Medium / Low]
|
|
|
|
[Explain which factors drive the confidence level for this specific task.]
|
|
|
|
### Risk Factors
|
|
|
|
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|
|
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
|
|
|
|
### Dependencies
|
|
|
|
| Dependency | Status | Impact if Delayed |
|
|
|-----------|--------|-------------------|
|
|
|
|
### Suggested Breakdown
|
|
|
|
| # | Sub-task | Estimate | Notes |
|
|
|---|----------|----------|-------|
|
|
| 1 | [Research / spike] | [X days] | |
|
|
| 2 | [Core implementation] | [X days] | |
|
|
| 3 | [Testing and validation] | [X days] | |
|
|
| | **Total** | **[Y days]** | |
|
|
|
|
### Notes and Assumptions
|
|
- [Key assumption that affects the estimate]
|
|
- [Any caveats about scope boundaries]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Output the estimate with a brief summary: recommended budget, confidence level, and the single biggest risk factor.
|
|
|
|
This skill is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — estimate generated.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 5: Next Steps
|
|
|
|
- If confidence is Low: recommend a time-boxed spike (`/prototype`) before committing.
|
|
- If the task is > 10 days: recommend breaking it into smaller stories via `/create-stories`.
|
|
- To schedule the task: run `/sprint-plan update` to add it to the next sprint.
|
|
|
|
### Guidelines
|
|
|
|
- Always give a range (optimistic / expected / pessimistic), never a single number
|
|
- The recommended budget should be the expected estimate, not the optimistic one
|
|
- Round to half-day increments — estimating in hours implies false precision for tasks longer than a day
|
|
- Do not pad estimates silently — call out risk explicitly so the team can decide
|