mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 10:17:06 +00:00
`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
165 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
165 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: tech-debt
|
||
description: "Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt across the codebase — scans for debt indicators, maintains a register."
|
||
argument-hint: "[scan|add|prioritize|report]"
|
||
user-invocable: true
|
||
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, AskUserQuestion
|
||
model: sonnet
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
!`source "${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR:-.}/.claude/hooks/yaml-helper.sh" 2>/dev/null && resolve_config --keys automation`
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Every `AskUserQuestion` call follows `.claude/docs/automation-modes.md`
|
||
(collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds;
|
||
`automation_always_ask` categories always prompt).
|
||
|
||
## Phase 1: Parse Subcommand
|
||
|
||
Determine the mode from the argument:
|
||
|
||
- `scan` — Scan the codebase for tech debt indicators
|
||
- `add` — Add a new tech debt entry manually
|
||
- `prioritize` — Re-prioritize the existing debt register
|
||
- `report` — Generate a summary report of current debt status
|
||
|
||
If no subcommand is provided, output usage and stop. Verdict: **FAIL** — missing required subcommand.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Phase 2A: Scan Mode
|
||
|
||
Search the codebase for debt indicators:
|
||
|
||
- `TODO` comments (count and categorize)
|
||
- `FIXME` comments (these are bugs disguised as debt)
|
||
- `HACK` comments (workarounds that need proper solutions)
|
||
- `@deprecated` markers
|
||
- Duplicated code blocks (similar patterns in multiple files)
|
||
- Files over 500 lines (potential god objects)
|
||
- Functions over 50 lines (potential complexity)
|
||
|
||
Categorize each finding:
|
||
|
||
- **Architecture Debt**: Wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues
|
||
- **Code Quality Debt**: Duplication, complexity, naming, missing types
|
||
- **Test Debt**: Missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases
|
||
- **Documentation Debt**: Missing docs, outdated docs, undocumented APIs
|
||
- **Dependency Debt**: Outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts
|
||
- **Performance Debt**: Known slow paths, unoptimized queries, memory issues
|
||
|
||
**Before presenting anything, establish that there was something to scan.**
|
||
Count the source files the scan actually covered. If that count is **zero** —
|
||
no `src/` directory, or it holds no source files — report:
|
||
|
||
> **NOT ASSESSED — no source files to scan.** `src/` contains no code, so
|
||
> "no debt indicators found" would be a statement about an empty search, not
|
||
> about the codebase. Run this once implementation is under way.
|
||
|
||
and stop. Do not write to the register and do not emit a COMPLETE verdict.
|
||
|
||
The distinction is the whole point of the scan: **zero findings over 400 files
|
||
is a clean codebase; zero findings over zero files is no information at all.**
|
||
Rendering both as "COMPLETE — scan findings written to register" reads as the
|
||
first. State the denominator whenever findings are reported,
|
||
including when it is large and the count is genuinely zero.
|
||
|
||
Present the findings to the user.
|
||
|
||
Ask: "May I write these findings to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
|
||
|
||
If yes, update the register (append new entries, do not overwrite existing ones). Verdict: **COMPLETE** — scan findings written to register.
|
||
|
||
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Phase 2B: Add Mode
|
||
|
||
Ask the user for the description, affected files, and impact if left unfixed (plain text prompts).
|
||
|
||
Then use `AskUserQuestion` to collect the **category**:
|
||
- Prompt: "What category does this tech debt belong to?"
|
||
- Options:
|
||
- `[A] Architecture Debt — wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues`
|
||
- `[B] Code Quality Debt — duplication, complexity, naming, missing types`
|
||
- `[C] Test Debt — missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases`
|
||
- `[D] Documentation Debt — missing/outdated docs, undocumented APIs`
|
||
- `[E] Dependency Debt — outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts`
|
||
- `[F] Performance Debt — known slow paths, memory issues, unoptimized queries`
|
||
|
||
Then use `AskUserQuestion` to collect the **estimated fix effort**:
|
||
- Prompt: "What is the estimated effort to fix this item?"
|
||
- Options:
|
||
- `[A] S — Small (under 1 day)`
|
||
- `[B] M — Medium (1–3 days)`
|
||
- `[C] L — Large (3–7 days)`
|
||
- `[D] XL — Extra Large (over 1 week)`
|
||
|
||
Present the complete new entry to the user.
|
||
|
||
Ask: "May I append this entry to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
|
||
|
||
If yes, append the entry. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — entry added to register.
|
||
|
||
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Phase 2C: Prioritize Mode
|
||
|
||
Read the debt register at `docs/tech-debt-register.md`.
|
||
|
||
Score each item by: `(impact_if_unfixed × frequency_of_encounter) / fix_effort`
|
||
|
||
Re-sort the register by priority score and recommend which items to include in the next sprint.
|
||
|
||
Present the re-prioritized register to the user.
|
||
|
||
Ask: "May I write the re-prioritized register back to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
|
||
|
||
If yes, write the updated file. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — register re-prioritized and saved.
|
||
|
||
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Phase 2D: Report Mode
|
||
|
||
Read the debt register. Generate summary statistics:
|
||
|
||
- Total items by category
|
||
- Total estimated fix effort
|
||
- Items added vs resolved since last report
|
||
- Trending direction (growing / stable / shrinking)
|
||
|
||
Flag any items that have been in the register for more than 3 sprints.
|
||
|
||
Output the report to the user. This mode is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — debt report generated.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Phase 3: Next Steps
|
||
|
||
- Run `/sprint-plan` to schedule high-priority debt items into the next sprint.
|
||
- Run `/tech-debt report` at the start of each sprint to track debt trends over time.
|
||
|
||
### Debt Register Format
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
## Technical Debt Register
|
||
Last updated: [Date]
|
||
Total items: [N] | Estimated total effort: [T-shirt sizes summed]
|
||
|
||
| ID | Category | Description | Files | Effort | Impact | Priority | Added | Sprint |
|
||
|----|----------|-------------|-------|--------|--------|----------|-------|--------|
|
||
| TD-001 | [Cat] | [Description] | [files] | [S/M/L/XL] | [Low/Med/High/Critical] | [Score] | [Date] | [Sprint to fix or "Backlog"] |
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Rules
|
||
- Tech debt is not inherently bad — it is a tool. The register tracks conscious decisions.
|
||
- Every debt entry must explain WHY it was accepted (deadline, prototype, missing info)
|
||
- "Scan" should run at least once per sprint to catch new debt
|
||
- Items older than 3 sprints without action should either be fixed or consciously accepted with a documented reason
|