mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-10-16 01:37:05 +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
85 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
85 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
# Agent Test Spec: technical-director
|
|
|
|
## Agent Summary
|
|
**Domain owned:** System architecture decisions, technical feasibility assessment, ADR oversight and approval, engine risk evaluation, technical phase gate.
|
|
**Does NOT own:** Game design decisions (creative-director / game-designer), creative direction, visual art style, production scheduling (producer).
|
|
**Model tier:** Opus (multi-document synthesis, high-stakes architecture and phase gate verdicts).
|
|
**Gate IDs handled:** TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY, TD-FEASIBILITY, TD-ARCHITECTURE, TD-ADR, TD-ENGINE-RISK, TD-PHASE-GATE.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Static Assertions (Structural)
|
|
|
|
Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/technical-director.md` frontmatter:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] `description:` field is present and domain-specific (references architecture, feasibility, ADR — not generic)
|
|
- [ ] `allowed-tools:` list may include Read for architecture documents; Bash only if required for technical checks
|
|
- [ ] Model tier is `claude-opus-4-8` per coordination-rules.md (directors with gate synthesis = Opus)
|
|
- [ ] Agent definition does not claim authority over game design decisions or creative direction
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Test Cases
|
|
|
|
### Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output format
|
|
**Scenario:** An architecture document for the "Combat System" is submitted. It describes a layered design: input layer → game logic layer → presentation layer, with clearly defined interfaces between each. Request is tagged TD-ARCHITECTURE.
|
|
**Expected:** Returns `TD-ARCHITECTURE: APPROVE` with rationale confirming that system boundaries are correctly separated and interfaces are well-defined.
|
|
**Assertions:**
|
|
- [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
|
|
- [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `TD-ARCHITECTURE: APPROVE`
|
|
- [ ] Rationale specifically references the layered structure and interface definitions — not generic architecture advice
|
|
- [ ] Output stays within technical scope — does not comment on whether the mechanic is fun or fits the creative vision
|
|
|
|
### Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects or escalates
|
|
**Scenario:** Writer asks technical-director to review and approve the dialogue scripts for the game's opening cutscene.
|
|
**Expected:** Agent declines to evaluate dialogue quality and redirects to narrative-director.
|
|
**Assertions:**
|
|
- [ ] Does not make any binding decision about the dialogue content or structure
|
|
- [ ] Explicitly names `narrative-director` as the correct handler
|
|
- [ ] May note technical constraints that affect dialogue (e.g., localization string limits, data format), but defers all content decisions
|
|
|
|
### Case 3: Gate verdict — correct vocabulary
|
|
**Scenario:** A proposed multiplayer mechanic requires raycasting against all active entities every frame to detect line-of-sight. At expected player counts (1000 entities in a large zone), this is O(n²) per frame. Request is tagged TD-FEASIBILITY.
|
|
**Expected:** Returns `TD-FEASIBILITY: CONCERNS` with specific citation of the O(n²) complexity and the entity count that makes this infeasible at target framerate.
|
|
**Assertions:**
|
|
- [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT — not freeform text
|
|
- [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `TD-FEASIBILITY: CONCERNS`
|
|
- [ ] Rationale includes the specific algorithmic complexity concern and the entity count threshold
|
|
- [ ] Suggests at least one alternative approach (e.g., spatial partitioning, interest management) without mandating which to choose
|
|
|
|
### Case 4: Conflict escalation — correct parent
|
|
**Scenario:** game-designer wants to add a real-time physics simulation for every inventory item (hundreds of items on screen simultaneously). technical-director assesses this as technically expensive and proposes simplifying the simulation. game-designer disagrees, arguing it is essential to the game feel.
|
|
**Expected:** technical-director clearly states the technical cost and constraints, proposes alternative implementation approaches that could achieve a similar feel, but explicitly defers the final design priority decision to creative-director as the arbiter of player experience trade-offs.
|
|
**Assertions:**
|
|
- [ ] Expresses the technical concern with specifics (e.g., performance budget, estimated cost)
|
|
- [ ] Proposes at least one alternative that could reduce cost while preserving intent
|
|
- [ ] Explicitly defers the "is this worth the cost" decision to creative-director — does not unilaterally cut the feature
|
|
- [ ] Does not claim authority to override game-designer's design intent
|
|
|
|
### Case 5: Context pass — uses provided context
|
|
**Scenario:** Agent receives a gate context block that includes the target platform constraints: mobile, 60fps target, 2GB RAM ceiling, no compute shaders. A proposed architecture includes a GPU-driven rendering pipeline.
|
|
**Expected:** Assessment references the specific hardware constraints from the context, identifies the compute shader dependency as incompatible with the stated platform constraints, and returns a CONCERNS or REJECT verdict with those specifics cited.
|
|
**Assertions:**
|
|
- [ ] References the specific platform constraints provided (mobile, 2GB RAM, no compute shaders)
|
|
- [ ] Does not give generic performance advice disconnected from the supplied constraints
|
|
- [ ] Correctly identifies the architectural component that conflicts with the platform constraint
|
|
- [ ] Verdict includes rationale tied to the provided context, not boilerplate warnings
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Protocol Compliance
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Returns verdicts using APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT vocabulary only
|
|
- [ ] Stays within declared technical domain
|
|
- [ ] Defers design priority conflicts to creative-director
|
|
- [ ] Uses gate IDs in output (e.g., `TD-FEASIBILITY: CONCERNS`) not inline prose verdicts
|
|
- [ ] Does not make binding game design or creative direction decisions
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Coverage Notes
|
|
- TD-ADR (Architecture Decision Record approval) is not covered — a dedicated case should be added when the /architecture-decision skill produces ADR documents.
|
|
- TD-ENGINE-RISK assessment for specific engine versions (e.g., Godot 4.6 post-cutoff APIs) is not covered — deferred to engine-specialist integration tests.
|
|
- TD-PHASE-GATE (full technical phase advancement) involving synthesis of multiple sub-gate results is deferred.
|
|
- Multi-domain architecture reviews (e.g., touching both TD-ARCHITECTURE and TD-ENGINE-RISK simultaneously) are not covered here.
|