添加 claude code game studios 到项目
This commit is contained in:
panw
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
|
||||
# Agent Test Spec: art-director
|
||||
|
||||
## Agent Summary
|
||||
**Domain owned:** Visual identity, art bible authorship and enforcement, asset quality standards, UI/UX visual design, visual phase gate, concept art evaluation.
|
||||
**Does NOT own:** UX interaction flows and information architecture (ux-designer's domain), audio direction (audio-director), code implementation.
|
||||
**Model tier:** Sonnet (note: despite the "director" title, art-director is assigned Sonnet per coordination-rules.md — it handles individual system analysis, not multi-document phase gate synthesis at the Opus level).
|
||||
**Gate IDs handled:** AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL, AD-ART-BIBLE, AD-PHASE-GATE.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Assertions (Structural)
|
||||
|
||||
Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/art-director.md` frontmatter:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] `description:` field is present and domain-specific (references visual identity, art bible, asset standards — not generic)
|
||||
- [ ] `allowed-tools:` list is read-focused; image review capability if supported; no Bash unless asset pipeline checks are justified
|
||||
- [ ] Model tier is `claude-sonnet-4-6` (NOT Opus — coordination-rules.md assigns Sonnet to art-director)
|
||||
- [ ] Agent definition does not claim authority over UX interaction flows or audio direction
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output format
|
||||
**Scenario:** The art bible's color palette section is submitted for review. The section defines a desaturated earth-tone primary palette with high-contrast accent colors tied to the game pillar "beauty in decay." The palette is internally consistent and references the pillar vocabulary. Request is tagged AD-ART-BIBLE.
|
||||
**Expected:** Returns `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE` with rationale confirming the palette's internal consistency and its alignment with the stated pillar.
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE`
|
||||
- [ ] Rationale references the specific palette characteristics and pillar alignment — not generic art advice
|
||||
- [ ] Output stays within visual domain — does not comment on UX interaction patterns or audio mood
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects or escalates
|
||||
**Scenario:** Sound designer asks art-director to specify how ambient audio should layer and duck when the player enters a combat zone.
|
||||
**Expected:** Agent declines to define audio behavior and redirects to audio-director.
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Does not make any binding decision about audio layering or ducking behavior
|
||||
- [ ] Explicitly names `audio-director` as the correct handler
|
||||
- [ ] May note if the audio has visual mood implications (e.g., "the audio should match the visual tension of the zone"), but defers all audio specification to audio-director
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 3: Gate verdict — correct vocabulary
|
||||
**Scenario:** Concept art for the protagonist is submitted. The art uses a vivid, saturated color palette (primary: #FF4500, #00BFFF) that directly contradicts the established art bible's "desaturated earth-tones" palette specification. Request is tagged AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL.
|
||||
**Expected:** Returns `AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS` with specific citation of the palette discrepancy, referencing the art bible's stated palette values versus the submitted concept's palette.
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT — not freeform text
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS`
|
||||
- [ ] Rationale specifically identifies the palette conflict — not a generic "doesn't match style" comment
|
||||
- [ ] References the art bible as the authoritative source for the correct palette
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 4: Conflict escalation — correct parent
|
||||
**Scenario:** ux-designer proposes using high-contrast, brightly colored icons for the HUD to improve readability. art-director believes this violates the art bible's muted visual language and would undermine the visual identity.
|
||||
**Expected:** art-director states the visual identity concern and references the art bible, acknowledges ux-designer's readability goal as legitimate, and escalates to creative-director to arbitrate the trade-off between visual coherence and usability.
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Escalates to `creative-director` (shared parent for creative domain conflicts)
|
||||
- [ ] Does not unilaterally override ux-designer's readability recommendation
|
||||
- [ ] Clearly frames the conflict as a trade-off between two legitimate goals
|
||||
- [ ] References the specific art bible rule being violated
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 5: Context pass — uses provided context
|
||||
**Scenario:** Agent receives a gate context block that includes the existing art bible with specific palette values (primary: #8B7355, #6B6B47; accent: #C8A96E) and style rules ("no pure white, no pure black; all shadows have warm undertones"). A new asset is submitted for review.
|
||||
**Expected:** Assessment references the specific hex values and style rules from the provided art bible, not generic color theory advice. Any concerns are tied to specific violations of the provided rules.
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] References specific palette values from the provided art bible context
|
||||
- [ ] Applies the specific style rules (no pure white/black, warm shadow undertones) from the provided document
|
||||
- [ ] Does not generate generic art direction feedback disconnected from the supplied art bible
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict rationale is traceable to specific lines or rules in the provided context
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Protocol Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Returns verdicts using APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT vocabulary only
|
||||
- [ ] Stays within declared visual domain
|
||||
- [ ] Escalates UX-vs-visual conflicts to creative-director
|
||||
- [ ] Uses gate IDs in output (e.g., `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE`) not inline prose verdicts
|
||||
- [ ] Does not make binding UX interaction, audio, or code implementation decisions
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Notes
|
||||
- AD-PHASE-GATE (full visual phase advancement) is not covered — deferred to integration with /gate-check skill.
|
||||
- Asset pipeline standards (file format, resolution, naming conventions) compliance checks are not covered here.
|
||||
- Shader visual output review is not covered — that interaction with the engine specialist is deferred.
|
||||
- UI component visual review (as distinct from UX flow review) could benefit from additional cases.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user