mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 10:17:06 +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
3.1 KiB
3.1 KiB
Gate definition, loaded by
/gate-checkfor the TARGET PHASE ONLY. Never load the other five — one gate applies per invocation.
Gate: Production → Polish
Required Artifacts:
- The code root has active code organized into subsystems
- All core mechanics from GDD are implemented (cross-reference
design/gdd/with the code root) - Main gameplay path is playable end-to-end
- Test files exist in
tests/unit/andtests/integration/covering Logic and Integration stories - All Logic stories from this sprint have corresponding unit test files in
tests/unit/ - Smoke check has been run with a PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS verdict — report exists in
production/qa/ - At least one QA plan exists in
production/qa/(generated by/qa-plan) covering this sprint, the final production sprint, or this production phase — run/qa-planif missing (CONCERNS — advisory, not blocking) - QA sign-off report exists in
production/qa/(generated by/team-qa) with verdict APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS - At least 3 distinct playtest sessions documented in
production/qa/playtests/ - Playtest reports cover: new player experience, mid-game systems, and difficulty curve
- Fun hypothesis from Game Concept has been explicitly validated or revised
Quality Checks:
- Tests are passing (run test suite via Bash)
- No critical/blocker bugs in any bug tracker or known issues
- Core loop plays as designed (compare to GDD acceptance criteria)
- Performance is within budget (check
performance.*inproject.yaml, else technical-preferences.md targets) - Playtest findings have been reviewed and critical fun issues addressed (not just documented)
- No "confusion loops" identified — no point in the game where >50% of playtesters got stuck without knowing why
- Difficulty curve matches the Difficulty Curve design doc (if one exists at
design/difficulty-curve.md) - All implemented screens have corresponding UX specs (no "designed in-code" screens)
- Interaction pattern library is up-to-date with all patterns used in implementation
- Accessibility compliance verified against committed tier in
design/accessibility-requirements.md
Workflow tier reductions
The checklist above is the full baseline. At lower tiers apply the
reduction for the resolved tier; items not named keep their status above.
Reductions only ever relax a requirement — workflow_overrides is the
only thing that adds one.
full— core mechanics + Logic/Integration tests + smoke check (PASS) + QA sign-off + 3+ playtests all requiredstandard— QA sign-off + per-story test coverage → recommended; core mechanics + smoke check + playable end-to-end + 1+ documented playtest + no critical/blocker bugs requiredminimal— smoke check + playable end-to-end + no critical/blocker bugs required; the core-mechanics cross-check → recommended; everything else drops. Reductions relax what must exist, never what must work — a gate that closes production on "it boots" alone has not asked whether the game plays.