添加 claude code game studios 到项目

docs/examples/reverse-document-workflow-example.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+# Reverse Documentation Workflow Example
+
+## Scenario
+Developer built a working skill tree system but never wrote a design doc.
+Code exists in `src/gameplay/skills/`, but `design/gdd/` has no skill-system.md.
+
+---
+
+## Session Transcript
+
+**User:**
+```
+I have a working skill tree system in src/gameplay/skills/ with about 1200 lines
+of code. I never wrote a design doc. Can we create one from the implementation?
+```
+
+**Game-Designer (reads code, analyzes):**
+```
+I've analyzed your skill tree implementation. Here's what I found:
+
+STRUCTURE:
+- 3 skill trees: Combat, Survival, Tech
+- 5 tiers per tree (unlock via level + prerequisites)
+- Total 45 skills (15 per tree)
+- Cost: skill points (1 per level, can respec for gold)
+
+MECHANICS:
+- Passive skills (stat bonuses)
+- Active skills (abilities with cooldowns)
+- Synergy bonuses (cross-tree unlocks at tier 4+)
+
+IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS:
+- Data-driven (JSON files in assets/data/skills/)
+- Save-compatible (skill state serialized)
+- UI shows locked/unlocked/available states
+
+QUESTIONS before I draft the design doc:
+
+1. **Design Intent:** Was the 3-tree structure meant to represent player archetypes
+   (fighter/survivor/engineer) or playstyle flexibility?
+
+2. **Respec Cost:** Respec costs gold - is this meant to:
+   - Discourage frequent respecs (commitment to builds)?
+   - Create a gold sink (economy balance)?
+   - Or should it be free (experimentation encouraged)?
+
+3. **Synergy System:** Cross-tree synergies appear at tier 4. Was this:
+   - Intentional (reward hybrid builds late-game)?
+   - Or emergent (accidentally creates hybrid meta)?
+
+4. **Balance Philosophy:** I see some skills are clearly better (tier-5 passive
+   is +50% damage). Is this:
+   - Power fantasy (late-game should feel OP)?
+   - Or unbalanced (needs tuning)?
+```
+
+**User:**
+```
+Good questions! Here's the intent:
+
+1. Yes, the 3 trees are archetypes but I want flexibility
+2. Respec should be cheap - I want experimentation
+3. Synergies were intentional - hybrid builds are a feature
+4. Yeah, tier 5 is meant to be powerful, but +50% might be too much
+```
+
+**Game-Designer:**
+```
+Perfect, that clarifies the vision. Let me draft the design doc:
+
+[Shows draft of design/gdd/skill-system.md]
+
+SECTIONS:
+1. Overview (3-tree system, hybrid-friendly, respec-encouraged)
+2. Design Pillars:
+   - Archetype clarity (each tree has identity)
+   - Build flexibility (no lock-in, cheap respec)
+   - Synergy rewards (cross-tree combinations viable)
+3. Detailed Design (tree structure, unlock rules, respec)
+4. Balance Framework (tier power curve, synergy limits)
+5. Edge Cases (respec during combat? max skills? cap?)
+6. Dependencies (UI, save system, tutorial)
+7. Acceptance Criteria (all trees viable, 10+ hybrid builds, clear tooltips)
+8. Open Questions:
+   - Should respec cost scale with level or stay flat?
+   - Tier 5 damage bonus: tune to +30% or keep +50%?
+
+**May I write this to design/gdd/skill-system.md?**
+```
+
+**User:**
+```
+Yes, write it. But let's tune tier 5 to +30% and make respec cost scale.
+```
+
+**Game-Designer:**
+```
+✅ Written to design/gdd/skill-system.md
+✅ Marked as [REVERSE-DOCUMENTED FROM IMPLEMENTATION]
+✅ Added TODO: Update tier-5 passive to +30% in assets/data/skills/combat-tree.json
+✅ Added TODO: Implement scaling respec cost formula
+
+Next steps:
+- Run /balance-check to validate skill tree progression curve?
+- Create ADR documenting why 3 trees instead of 5?
+- Update tutorial to explain hybrid synergies?
+```
+
+---
+
+## Key Observations
+
+1. **Agent asked clarifying questions** - didn't just describe code
+2. **Separated intent from implementation** - user corrected "accidental" imbalance
+3. **Design doc captures "why"** - not just "what the code does"
+4. **Identified missing pieces** - edge cases not in code
+5. **Flagged follow-up work** - balance tuning, ADRs, tutorial
+
+## Outcome
+
+The design doc now exists and **matches reality** while also capturing the **intended vision**. Future changes will reference this doc, and new team members understand the *why* behind decisions.