添加 claude code game studios 到项目

2026-05-15 14:52:29 +08:00
parent dff559462d
commit a16fe4bff7
415 changed files with 78609 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/docs/examples/README.md
+++ b/docs/examples/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,357 @@
+# Collaborative Session Examples
+
+This directory contains realistic, end-to-end session transcripts showing how the Game Studio Agent Architecture works in practice. Each example demonstrates the **collaborative workflow** where agents ask questions, present options, and wait for user approval rather than autonomously generating content.
+
+---
+
+## Visual Reference
+
+**New to the system? Start here:**
+[Skill Flow Diagrams](skill-flow-diagrams.md) — visual maps of all 7 phases and how skills chain together.
+
+---
+
+## 📚 **Available Examples**
+
+### CORE WORKFLOW
+
+### [Skill Flow Diagrams](skill-flow-diagrams.md)
+**Type:** Visual Reference
+**Complexity:** All levels
+
+Full pipeline overview (zero to ship), plus detailed chain diagrams for:
+design-system, story lifecycle, UX pipeline, and brownfield onboarding.
+**Start here if you want to understand how the pieces fit together.**
+
+---
+
+### [Session: Authoring a GDD with /design-system](session-design-system-skill.md)
+**Type:** Design (skill-driven)
+**Skill:** `/design-system`
+**Duration:** ~60 minutes (14 turns)
+**Complexity:** Medium
+
+**Scenario:**
+Dev runs `/design-system movement` after `/map-systems` produced the systems index. The skill loads context from the game concept and dependency GDDs, runs a technical feasibility pre-check, then guides through all 8 GDD sections one at a time — drafting, approving, and writing each section to disk before moving to the next.
+
+**Key Moments:**
+- Technical feasibility pre-check flags Jolt physics default change (Godot 4.6)
+- Incremental writing: each section on disk immediately after approval
+- Session crash during section 5 → agent resumes from first empty section
+- Dependency signals (stamina, inventory) surfaced during the Dependencies section
+- Ends with explicit handoff: "run `/design-review` before the next system"
+
+**Learn:**
+- How `/design-system` is different from asking an agent to "write a GDD"
+- How the section-by-section cycle prevents 30k-token context bloat
+- How incremental file writing survives session crashes
+- How the skill surfaces downstream dependency contracts
+
+---
+
+### [Session: Full Story Lifecycle](session-story-lifecycle.md)
+**Type:** Full Workflow
+**Skills:** `/story-readiness` → implementation → `/story-done`
+**Duration:** ~50 minutes (13 turns)
+**Complexity:** Medium
+
+**Scenario:**
+Dev picks up a story from the sprint backlog. `/story-readiness` catches a roll-direction ambiguity before any code is written. After implementation, `/story-done` verifies 9 acceptance criteria, identifies 2 deferred criteria (inventory not integrated yet), and closes the story with notes.
+
+**Key Moments:**
+- `/story-readiness` catches spec ambiguity in Turn 2 — resolved before implementation starts
+- ADR status check: story would be BLOCKED if ADR was still Proposed
+- Manifest version check: confirms story's guidance hasn't drifted from current architecture
+- Deferred criteria tracked (not lost) when integration not yet possible
+- `sprint-status.yaml` updated at story close, next ready story surfaced automatically
+
+**Learn:**
+- Why `/story-readiness` prevents late-implementation ambiguity
+- How deferred criteria work (COMPLETE WITH NOTES vs. BLOCKED)
+- How TR-ID references prevent false deviation flags
+- The full loop from backlog → implemented → closed
+
+---
+
+### [Session: Gate Check and Phase Transition](session-gate-check-phase-transition.md)
+**Type:** Phase Gate
+**Skill:** `/gate-check`
+**Duration:** ~20 minutes (7 turns)
+**Complexity:** Low
+
+**Scenario:**
+Dev completes the Systems Design phase and runs `/gate-check` to advance. The gate finds all 6 MVP GDDs complete, cross-review passed with one low-severity concern. Gate passes, `stage.txt` updated, and the agent provides a specific ordered checklist for Technical Setup.
+
+**Key Moments:**
+- Gate validates artifact presence AND internal completeness (8 sections per GDD)
+- CONCERNS ≠ FAIL: low-severity cross-review note passes the gate
+- stage.txt update changes what `/help`, `/sprint-status`, and all skills see going forward
+- Agent surfaces the cross-review concern as a concrete ADR to write next
+- Next phase checklist is specific and ordered, not generic
+
+**Learn:**
+- What a gate check actually validates (not just "do files exist?")
+- How PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdicts work
+- Why stage.txt is the authority for phase tracking
+- What changes after a phase transition
+
+---
+
+### [Session: UX Pipeline — /ux-design → /ux-review → /team-ui](session-ux-pipeline.md)
+**Type:** UX Design Pipeline
+**Skills:** `/ux-design`, `/ux-review`, `/team-ui`
+**Duration:** ~90 minutes (16 turns)
+**Complexity:** Medium-High
+
+**Scenario:**
+Dev designs the HUD and inventory screen. `/ux-design` reads the player journey and GDDs to ground decisions in player emotional state. `/ux-review` catches a blocking accessibility gap (no keyboard alternative to drag-drop) and an advisory colorblind issue. After fixes, `/team-ui` accepts the handoff.
+
+**Key Moments:**
+- HUD philosophy choice (diegetic vs. persistent vs. tactical) grounded in survival genre conventions
+- `/ux-review` distinguishes BLOCKING (stops handoff) vs. ADVISORY (can fix in visual pass)
+- Accessibility caught before implementation, not during QA
+- Keyboard alternative added in one turn; review re-runs and passes
+- `/team-ui` checks for a passing `/ux-review` before starting visual design
+
+**Learn:**
+- How `/ux-design` uses player journey context to ground UI decisions
+- What `/ux-review` actually checks (not just "does a spec exist?")
+- The difference between HUD doc (`design/ux/hud.md`) and per-screen specs
+- How accessibility issues are handled at design time vs. implementation time
+
+---
+
+### [Session: Brownfield Onboarding with /adopt](session-adopt-brownfield.md)
+**Type:** Brownfield Adoption
+**Skill:** `/adopt`
+**Duration:** ~30 minutes (8 turns)
+**Complexity:** Low-Medium
+
+**Scenario:**
+Dev has 3 months of existing code and rough design notes but nothing in the right format. `/adopt` audits format compliance (not just file existence), classifies 4 gaps by severity, builds an ordered 7-step migration plan, and immediately fixes the BLOCKING gap (missing systems index) by inferring it from the codebase.
+
+**Key Moments:**
+- FORMAT audit distinguishes "file exists" from "file has required internal structure"
+- BLOCKING gap identified: missing systems index prevents 4+ skills from running
+- Migration plan is ordered: blocking gaps first, then high, then medium
+- Systems index bootstrapped from code structure — brownfield code contains the answer
+- Retrofit mode vs. new authoring: `/design-system retrofit` fills gaps without overwriting
+
+**Learn:**
+- The difference between `/adopt` and `/project-stage-detect`
+- How format compliance is checked (section detection, not just file presence)
+- How brownfield projects can onboard without losing existing work
+- When to use retrofit mode vs. full authoring
+
+---
+
+### FOUNDATIONAL EXAMPLES
+
+### [Session: Designing the Crafting System](session-design-crafting-system.md)
+**Type:** Design
+**Agent:** game-designer
+**Duration:** ~45 minutes (12 turns)
+**Complexity:** Medium
+
+**Scenario:**
+Solo dev needs to design a crafting system that serves Pillar 2 ("Emergent Discovery Through Experimentation"). The agent guides them through question/answer, presents 3 design options with game theory analysis, incorporates user modifications, and iteratively drafts the GDD with approval at each step.
+
+**Key Collaborative Moments:**
+- Agent asks 5 clarifying questions upfront
+- Presents 3 distinct options with pros/cons + MDA alignment
+- User modifies recommended option, agent incorporates immediately
+- Edge case flagged proactively ("what if non-recipe combo?")
+- Each GDD section shown for approval before moving to next
+- Explicit "May I write to [file]?" before creating file
+
+**Learn:**
+- How design agents ask about goals, constraints, references
+- How to present options using game design theory (MDA, SDT, Bartle)
+- How to iterate on drafts section-by-section
+- When to delegate to specialists (systems-designer, economy-designer)
+
+---
+
+### [Session: Implementing Combat Damage Calculation](session-implement-combat-damage.md)
+**Type:** Implementation
+**Agent:** gameplay-programmer
+**Duration:** ~30 minutes (10 turns)
+**Complexity:** Low-Medium
+
+**Scenario:**
+User has a complete design doc and wants the damage calculation implemented. Agent reads the spec, identifies 7 ambiguities/gaps, asks clarifying questions, proposes architecture for approval, implements with rule enforcement, and proactively writes tests.
+
+**Key Collaborative Moments:**
+- Agent reads design doc first, identifies 7 spec ambiguities
+- Architecture proposed with code samples BEFORE implementation
+- User requests type safety, agent refines and re-proposes
+- Rules catch issues (hardcoded values), agent fixes transparently
+- Tests written proactively following verification-driven development
+- Agent offers options for next steps rather than assuming
+
+**Learn:**
+- How implementation agents clarify specs before coding
+- How to propose architecture with code samples for approval
+- How rules enforce standards automatically
+- How to handle spec gaps (ask, don't assume)
+- Verification-driven development (tests prove it works)
+
+---
+
+### [Session: Scope Crisis - Strategic Decision Making](session-scope-crisis-decision.md)
+**Type:** Strategic Decision
+**Agent:** creative-director
+**Duration:** ~25 minutes (8 turns)
+**Complexity:** High
+
+**Scenario:**
+Solo dev faces crisis: Alpha milestone in 2 weeks, crafting system needs 3 weeks, investor demo is make-or-break. Creative director gathers context, frames the decision, presents 3 strategic options with honest trade-off analysis, makes recommendation but defers to user, then documents decision with ADR and demo script.
+
+**Key Collaborative Moments:**
+- Agent reads context docs before proposing solutions
+- Asks 5 questions to understand decision constraints
+- Frames decision properly (what's at stake, evaluation criteria)
+- Presents 3 options with risk analysis and historical precedent
+- Makes strong recommendation but explicitly: "this is your call"
+- Documents decision + provides demo script to support user
+
+**Learn:**
+- How leadership agents frame strategic decisions
+- How to present options with trade-off analysis
+- How to use game dev precedent and theory in recommendations
+- How to document decisions (ADRs)
+- How to cascade decisions to affected departments
+
+---
+
+### [Reverse Documentation Workflow](reverse-document-workflow-example.md)
+**Type:** Brownfield Documentation
+**Agent:** game-designer
+**Duration:** ~20 minutes
+**Complexity:** Low
+
+**Scenario:**
+Developer built a skill tree system but never wrote a design doc. Agent reads the code, infers the design intent, asks clarifying questions about ambiguous decisions, and produces a retroactive GDD.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 **What These Examples Demonstrate**
+
+All examples follow the **collaborative workflow pattern:**
+
+```
+Question → Options → Decision → Draft → Approval
+```
+
+> **Note:** These examples show the collaborative pattern as conversational text.
+> In practice, agents now use the `AskUserQuestion` tool at decision points to
+> present structured option pickers (with labels, descriptions, and multi-select).
+> The pattern is **Explain → Capture**: agents explain their analysis in
+> conversation first, then present a structured UI picker for the user's decision.
+
+### ✅ **Collaborative Behaviors Shown:**
+
+1. **Agents Ask Before Assuming**
+   - Design agents ask about goals, constraints, references
+   - Implementation agents clarify spec ambiguities
+   - Leadership agents gather full context before recommending
+
+2. **Agents Present Options, Not Dictates**
+   - 2-4 options with pros/cons
+   - Reasoning based on theory, precedent, project pillars
+   - Recommendation made, but user decides
+
+3. **Agents Show Work Before Finalizing**
+   - Design drafts shown section-by-section
+   - Architecture proposals shown before implementation
+   - Strategic analysis presented before decisions
+
+4. **Agents Get Approval Before Writing Files**
+   - Explicit "May I write to [file]?" before using Write/Edit tools
+   - Multi-file changes list all affected files first
+   - User says "Yes" before any file is created
+
+5. **Agents Iterate on Feedback**
+   - User modifications incorporated immediately
+   - No defensiveness when user changes recommendations
+   - Celebrate when user improves agent's suggestion
+
+---
+
+## 📖 **How to Use These Examples**
+
+### For New Users:
+Read these examples BEFORE your first session. They show realistic expectations for how agents work:
+- Agents are consultants, not autonomous executors
+- You make all creative/strategic decisions
+- Agents provide expert guidance and options
+
+### For Understanding Specific Workflows:
+- **New to the system?** → Read skill-flow-diagrams.md first
+- **Running /design-system for the first time?** → Read session-design-system-skill.md
+- **Picking up a story?** → Read session-story-lifecycle.md
+- **Finishing a phase?** → Read session-gate-check-phase-transition.md
+- **Starting UI work?** → Read session-ux-pipeline.md
+- **Have an existing project?** → Read session-adopt-brownfield.md
+- **Designing a system (agent-driven)?** → Read session-design-crafting-system.md
+- **Implementing code?** → Read session-implement-combat-damage.md
+- **Making strategic decisions?** → Read session-scope-crisis-decision.md
+
+### For Training:
+If you're teaching someone to use this system, walk through one example turn-by-turn to show:
+- What good questions look like
+- How to evaluate presented options
+- When to approve vs. request changes
+- How to maintain creative control while leveraging AI expertise
+
+---
+
+## 🔍 **Common Patterns Across All Examples**
+
+### Turn 1-2: **Understand Before Acting**
+- Agent reads context (design docs, specs, constraints)
+- Agent asks clarifying questions
+- No assumptions or guesses
+
+### Turn 3-5: **Present Options with Reasoning**
+- 2-4 distinct approaches
+- Pros/cons for each
+- Theory/precedent supporting the analysis
+- Recommendation made, decision deferred to user
+
+### Turn 6-8: **Iterate on Drafts**
+- Show work incrementally
+- Incorporate feedback immediately
+- Flag edge cases or ambiguities proactively
+
+### Turn 9-10: **Approval and Completion**
+- "May I write to [file]?"
+- User: "Yes"
+- Agent writes files
+- Agent offers next steps (tests, review, integration)
+
+---
+
+## 🚀 **Try It Yourself**
+
+After reading these examples, try this exercise:
+
+1. Pick one of your game systems (combat, inventory, progression, etc.)
+2. Ask the relevant agent to design or implement it
+3. Notice if the agent:
+   - ✅ Asks clarifying questions upfront
+   - ✅ Presents options with reasoning
+   - ✅ Shows drafts before finalizing
+   - ✅ Requests approval before writing files
+
+If the agent skips any of these, remind it:
+> "Please follow the collaborative protocol from docs/COLLABORATIVE-DESIGN-PRINCIPLE.md"
+
+---
+
+## 📝 **Additional Resources**
+
+- **Full Principle Documentation:** [docs/COLLABORATIVE-DESIGN-PRINCIPLE.md](../COLLABORATIVE-DESIGN-PRINCIPLE.md)
+- **Workflow Guide:** [docs/WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md](../WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md)
+- **Agent Roster:** [.claude/docs/agent-roster.md](../../.claude/docs/agent-roster.md)
+- **CLAUDE.md (Collaboration Protocol):** [CLAUDE.md](../../CLAUDE.md#collaboration-protocol)