본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

review-all-gdds

Review multiple game design documents together to find conflicting rules, overlapping responsibilities, economic imbalance, and strategies that overshadow others. Assess how systems interact and identify issues that individual document reviews can miss.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Holistic cross-GDD review — contradictions between systems, dominant strategies, economic imbalance, cognitive overload, pillar drift.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Checking consistency across game system design documents
  • Assessing overall balance after major design changes
  • Finding cross-system problems before architecture work
  • Reviewing documents changed since the previous review

포함된 파일(8)

  • SKILL.md7.2 KB
  • references/1-load.md4.7 KB
  • references/2-consistency.md6.3 KB
  • references/3-design-holism.md7.5 KB
  • references/4-scenarios.md4.4 KB
  • references/5-report.md4.2 KB
  • references/6-write.md2.4 KB
  • references/7-handoff.md1.8 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow,system_overrides

Review All GDDs

This skill reads every system GDD simultaneously and performs two complementary reviews that cannot be done per-GDD in isolation:

  1. Cross-GDD Consistency — contradictions, stale references, and ownership conflicts between documents
  2. Game Design Holism — issues that only emerge when you see all systems together: dominant strategies, broken economies, cognitive overload, pillar drift, competing progression loops

This is distinct from /design-review, which reviews one GDD for internal completeness. This skill reviews the relationships between all GDDs.

When to run:

  • After all MVP-tier GDDs are individually approved
  • After any GDD is significantly revised mid-production
  • Before /create-architecture begins (architecture built on inconsistent GDDs inherits those inconsistencies)

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Argument modes:

Focus: $ARGUMENTS (blank = full)

  • No argument / full: Both consistency and design theory passes
  • consistency: Cross-GDD consistency checks only (faster)
  • design-theory: Game design holism checks only
  • since-last-review: Only GDDs modified since the last review report (git-based)

workflow per GDD (per .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md): each GDD validates against its effective tier — the project value, overridden per system by the system_overrides row for that system when the block lists one. At full, validate all 8 sections across all GDDs. At standard, validate the 5 required sections; optional sections (Player Fantasy, Tuning Knobs, conditional Formulas) are surfaced as advisory only. At minimal, this skill is not applicable (no GDDs).

Phase 1: Load Everything

Read references/1-load.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.

Parallel Execution

Phase 2 (Consistency) and Phase 3 (Design Theory) are independent — they read the same GDD inputs but produce separate reports. Spawn both as parallel Agent agents simultaneously rather than waiting for Phase 2 to complete before starting Phase 3. Collect both results before writing the combined report.

Spawn both as game-designer sub-agents (subagent_type: game-designer) — GDD consistency and design-theory review is its domain.

When spawning the Phase 2 and Phase 3 agents, always pass:

  • The loaded GDD content each phase needs — not file paths. Paste the sections; the sub-agent has its own context and cannot re-read Phase 1's results, so a path forces a full re-read (and contradicts the "do not re-read" rule below). Pass only the phase's slice: Phase 2 (consistency) needs each GDD's Dependencies, Detailed Design/Rules, Formulas, Tuning Knobs and Acceptance Criteria; Phase 3 (design theory) needs Player Fantasy, progression/reward structure and the game pillars.
  • The full entity registry contents (design/registry/entities.yaml) if loaded in Phase 1b (paste the registry text, not just a file path)
  • The specific checklist items assigned to that agent's phase (Phase 2 gets 2a–2f; Phase 3 gets 3a–3g)
  • The engine name and version — engine.name and engine.version from project.yaml, resolving each field independently (if its key is absent or empty, use .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md) — plus docs/engine-reference/[engine]/VERSION.md

Do not rely on the subagent to re-read these files — it has its own context window and cannot access Phase 1 results unless they are explicitly passed in the Agent prompt.


Phase 2: Cross-GDD Consistency

Read references/2-consistency.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.

Phase 3: Game Design Holism

Read references/3-design-holism.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.

Phase 4: Cross-System Scenario Walkthrough

Read references/4-scenarios.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.

Phase 5: Output the Review Report

Read references/5-report.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.

Phase 6: Write Report and Flag GDDs

Read references/6-write.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.

Phase 7: Handoff

Read references/7-handoff.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.

Error Recovery Protocol

First, verify the artifact. If the return contract named a path, check the path exists before treating the phase as done — a named artifact that is not on disk is a failed phase, however fluent the response reads. An agent can burn a full phase and return a plausible preamble having written nothing, which is neither BLOCKED nor an error nor "fails to complete", so the trigger below never fires. Resume it naming the unmet contract; the context is usually still there.

If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or fails to complete: surface it immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a partial report (retry scope here = fewer GDDs / single-system). Full procedure: .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md.


Collaborative Protocol

In collaborative mode (the default). For guided and autonomous modes, see .claude/docs/automation-modes.md. In autonomous mode the PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict is still printed and logged — only the closing handoff widget is skipped.

  1. Read silently — load all GDDs before presenting anything
  2. Show everything — present the full consistency and design theory analysis before asking for any action
  3. Distinguish blocking from advisory — not every issue needs to block architecture; be clear about which do
  4. Don't make design decisions — flag contradictions and options, but never unilaterally decide which GDD is "right"
  5. Ask before writing — confirm before writing the report or updating the systems index
  6. Be specific — every issue must cite the exact GDD, section, and text involved; no vague warnings

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

adopt

무료

Audit an existing project's design documents and supporting files to check whether their formats work with the template's skills. Get a numbered migration plan that prioritizes gaps and required changes, rather than simply listing what exists.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Checking existing documents before adopting a project template
  • Auditing game design documents or architecture decision records
  • Prioritizing gaps in project tracking and configuration files
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios2.7만2026년 10월 8일 업데이트

Document a technical decision in an architecture decision record, or ADR. Capture its context, alternatives, and consequences, assign a record number, and distinguish a proposed decision from an accepted one so dependent work reflects its actual status.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Recording the reasons behind a technical choice
  • Documenting alternatives and consequences of a design decision
  • Creating numbered records alongside existing architecture decisions
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios2.7만2026년 10월 8일 업데이트

Review whether game design requirements are covered by documented architecture decisions. Identify missing coverage, conflicting decisions, and engine compatibility concerns, with an optional matrix linking requirements to development stories and tests.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Find game requirements without architecture decisions
  • Check for conflicts between architecture decisions
  • Review compatibility with the pinned engine version
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios2.7만2026년 10월 8일 업데이트

art-bible

무료

Create a game's art direction document, defining its visual rules, mood, shapes, colors, and production standards. Review and approve sections individually, with guidance that connects character, environment, and interface design to the game's concept and technical constraints.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Defining a game's core visual identity before asset production
  • Documenting character, environment, and interface design rules
  • Aligning asset standards with engine and performance limits
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios2.7만2026년 10월 8일 업데이트

Audit game asset files for naming rules, size limits, formats, and broken references. Receive a report of measured violations and suggested fixes, with clear explanations of checks that lack data or cannot be assessed for the engine.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Checking image and audio naming conventions
  • Finding files that exceed asset size limits
  • Investigating missing references and potentially unused assets
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios2.7만2026년 10월 8일 업데이트

Turn game design documents and character profiles into asset specifications and image generation prompts. Define appearance, dimensions, file formats, and naming rules, then maintain an asset list that tracks progress and identifies shared assets.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • List the visual assets needed for a game
  • Define consistent character and environment asset specifications
  • Prepare image generation prompts from an art direction guide
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios2.7만2026년 10월 8일 업데이트

Donchitos의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고