添加 claude code game studios 到项目
This commit is contained in:
panw
178
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/review/review-all-gdds.md
Normal file
178
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/review/review-all-gdds.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
|
||||
# Skill Test Spec: /review-all-gdds
|
||||
|
||||
## Skill Summary
|
||||
|
||||
`/review-all-gdds` is an Opus-tier skill that performs a holistic cross-GDD review
|
||||
across all files in `design/gdd/`. It runs two complementary review phases in
|
||||
parallel: Phase 1 checks for consistency (contradictions, formula mismatches,
|
||||
stale references, competing ownership), and Phase 2 checks design theory (dominant
|
||||
strategies, pillar drift, cognitive overload, economic imbalance). Because the two
|
||||
phases are independent, they are spawned simultaneously to save time. The skill
|
||||
produces a CONSISTENT / MINOR ISSUES / MAJOR ISSUES verdict and is read-only — no
|
||||
files are written without explicit user approval.
|
||||
|
||||
The skill is itself the holistic review gate in the pipeline. It is invoked after
|
||||
individual GDDs are complete and before architecture work begins. It does NOT spawn
|
||||
any director gate agents (it IS the director-level review).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Assertions (Structural)
|
||||
|
||||
Verified automatically by `/skill-test static` — no fixture needed.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Has required frontmatter fields: `name`, `description`, `argument-hint`, `user-invocable`, `allowed-tools`
|
||||
- [ ] Has ≥5 phase headings (complex multi-phase skill)
|
||||
- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: CONSISTENT, MINOR ISSUES, MAJOR ISSUES
|
||||
- [ ] Does NOT require "May I write" language (read-only skill)
|
||||
- [ ] Has a next-step handoff at the end
|
||||
- [ ] Documents parallel phase spawning (Phase 1 and Phase 2 are independent)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Director Gate Checks
|
||||
|
||||
No director gates — this skill spawns no director gate agents. It IS the holistic
|
||||
review; delegating to a director gate would create a circular dependency.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 1: Happy Path — Clean GDD set with no conflicts
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `design/gdd/` contains ≥3 system GDDs
|
||||
- All GDDs are internally consistent: no formula contradictions, no competing ownership, no stale references
|
||||
- All GDDs align with the pillars defined in `design/gdd/game-pillars.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill reads all GDD files in `design/gdd/`
|
||||
2. Phase 1 (consistency scan) and Phase 2 (design theory check) spawn in parallel
|
||||
3. Phase 1 finds no contradictions, no formula mismatches, no ownership conflicts
|
||||
4. Phase 2 finds no pillar drift, no dominant strategies, no cognitive overload
|
||||
5. Skill outputs a structured findings table with 0 blocking issues
|
||||
6. Verdict: CONSISTENT
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Both review phases are spawned in parallel (not sequentially)
|
||||
- [ ] Output includes a findings table (even if empty — shows "No issues found")
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is CONSISTENT when no conflicts are found
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT write any files without user approval
|
||||
- [ ] Next-step handoff to `/architecture-review` or `/create-architecture` is present
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 2: Failure Path — Conflicting rules between two GDDs
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- GDD-A defines a floor value (e.g. "minimum [output] is [N]")
|
||||
- GDD-B states a mechanic that bypasses that floor (e.g. "[mechanic] can reduce [output] to 0")
|
||||
- The two GDDs are otherwise complete and valid
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Phase 1 (consistency scan) detects the contradiction between GDD-A and GDD-B
|
||||
2. Conflict is reported with: both filenames, the specific conflicting rules, and severity HIGH
|
||||
3. Verdict: MAJOR ISSUES
|
||||
4. Handoff instructs user to resolve the conflict and re-run before proceeding
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is MAJOR ISSUES (not CONSISTENT or MINOR ISSUES)
|
||||
- [ ] Both GDD filenames are named in the conflict entry
|
||||
- [ ] The specific contradicting rules are quoted or described (not vague "conflict found")
|
||||
- [ ] Issue is classified as severity HIGH (blocking)
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT auto-resolve the conflict
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 3: Partial Path — Single GDD with orphaned dependency reference
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- GDD-A lists a dependency in its Dependencies section pointing to "system-B"
|
||||
- No GDD for system-B exists in `design/gdd/`
|
||||
- All other GDDs are consistent
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Phase 1 detects the orphaned dependency reference in GDD-A
|
||||
2. Issue is reported as: DEPENDENCY GAP — GDD-A references system-B which has no GDD
|
||||
3. No other conflicts found
|
||||
4. Verdict: MINOR ISSUES (dependency gap is advisory, not blocking by itself)
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is MINOR ISSUES (not MAJOR ISSUES for a single orphaned reference)
|
||||
- [ ] The specific GDD filename and the missing dependency name are reported
|
||||
- [ ] Skill suggests running `/design-system system-B` to resolve the gap
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT skip or silently ignore the missing dependency
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 4: Edge Case — No GDD files found
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `design/gdd/` directory is empty or does not exist
|
||||
- No GDD files are present
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill attempts to read files in `design/gdd/`
|
||||
2. No files found — skill outputs an error with guidance
|
||||
3. Skill recommends running `/brainstorm` and `/design-system` before re-running
|
||||
4. Skill does NOT produce a verdict (CONSISTENT / MINOR ISSUES / MAJOR ISSUES)
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill outputs a clear error message when no GDDs are found
|
||||
- [ ] No verdict is produced when the directory is empty
|
||||
- [ ] Skill recommends the correct next action (`/brainstorm` or `/design-system`)
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT crash or produce a partial report
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 5: Director Gate — No gate spawned regardless of review mode
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `design/gdd/` contains ≥2 consistent system GDDs
|
||||
- `production/session-state/review-mode.txt` exists with content `full`
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/review-all-gdds`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill reads all GDDs and runs the two review phases
|
||||
2. Skill does NOT read `review-mode.txt`
|
||||
3. Skill does NOT spawn any director gate agent (CD-, TD-, PR-, AD- prefixed)
|
||||
4. Skill completes and outputs its verdict normally
|
||||
5. Review mode setting has no effect on this skill's behavior
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] No director gate agents are spawned at any point
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT read `production/session-state/review-mode.txt`
|
||||
- [ ] Output does not contain any "Gate: [GATE-ID]" or "skipped" gate entries
|
||||
- [ ] The skill produces a verdict regardless of review mode
|
||||
- [ ] R4 metric: gate count for this skill = 0 in all modes
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Protocol Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 1 (consistency) and Phase 2 (design theory) spawned in parallel — not sequentially
|
||||
- [ ] Does NOT write any files without "May I write" approval
|
||||
- [ ] Findings table shown before any write ask
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is one of exactly: CONSISTENT, MINOR ISSUES, MAJOR ISSUES
|
||||
- [ ] Ends with appropriate handoff: MAJOR ISSUES → fix and re-run; MINOR ISSUES → may proceed with awareness; CONSISTENT → `/create-architecture`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Economic balance analysis (source/sink loops) requires cross-GDD resource data — covered
|
||||
structurally by Case 2 (the conflict detection pattern is the same).
|
||||
- The design theory phase (Phase 2) checks including dominant strategy detection and
|
||||
cognitive overload are not individually fixture-tested — they follow the same
|
||||
pattern as consistency checks and are validated via the pillar drift case structure.
|
||||
- The `since-last-review` scoping mode is not tested here — it is a runtime concern.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user