pixelheros/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/review/review-all-gdds.md

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.