dev-story
Implement a story: ADR guidelines, right programmer agent, code plus test. Then /story-done (/story-readiness before, /code-review after, at standard/full).
How do I install this agent skill?
npx skills add https://github.com/donchitos/claude-code-game-studios --skill dev-storyIs this agent skill safe to install?
- Gen Agent Trust Hubpass
The skill orchestrates the software development lifecycle by processing story files and spawning specialized sub-agents for code and test implementation. It uses local bash scripts for configuration management and performs extensive validation of architectural context and project dependencies. No malicious patterns or security risks were identified.
- Socketpass
No alerts
- Snykpass
Risk: LOW · No issues
- ZeroLeakspass
Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed
What does this agent skill do?
!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow,story_granularity,qa.level,testing.strict,system_overrides
Resolved above — use as-is. No block → defaults in
.claude/docs/config-resolution.md.
Dev Story
This skill bridges planning and code. It reads a story file in full, assembles all the context a programmer needs, routes to the correct specialist agent, and drives implementation to completion — including writing the test.
The loop for every story:
/qa-plan sprint ← define test requirements before sprint begins
/story-readiness [path] ← validate before starting
/dev-story [path] ← implement it (this skill)
/code-review [files] ← review it
/story-done [path] ← verify and close it
At workflow: minimal the loop is /dev-story [path] → /story-done [path]:
no QA plan, readiness check or sprint. /story-done names the next story.
With a sprint plan, after all sprint stories are done: run /team-qa sprint to execute the full QA cycle and get a sign-off verdict before advancing the project stage.
Output: Source code under the project's code root + test file under the engine's test root (tests/ Godot, Assets/Tests/ Unity, Source/<Module>/Private/Tests/ Unreal — .claude/docs/directory-structure.md). Resolve the code root from engine.name (src/ Godot, Assets/ Unity, Source/<Module>/ Unreal) per .claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md.
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).
Workflow tier: resolved per the story's system (per
.claude/docs/workflow-modes.md) — the GDD filename stem of the story's
GDD: path (design/gdd/<stem>.md → <stem>), with the [system] segment of
its TR-[system]-NNN ID accepted only as a fallback alias: use the
system_overrides row for that system if the block lists one, else the
project value. Resolve it at the start of Phase 2 (the story header is
read there) and apply it to the prerequisite gate.
story_granularity — it sets the
expected implementation cycle: multi-day at coarse (the default, via rigor: minimal; give the programmer
subagent longer working context), 1–2 days at balanced (rigor: standard), hours
at fine (tighter context). It does not change the prerequisite gate.
qa.level: controls whether the programmer brief carries
a test requirement. At minimal, omit the "Test requirement" line (Phase 4 item 7)
— tests are not required; at standard, include the per-type test requirement; at
full, also pass a coverage target. Distinct from workflow: minimal. When tests
are not required (minimal), the Phase 5 testing.strict gate is a no-op.
Phase 1: Find the Story
If a path is provided: read that file directly.
If no argument: check production/session-state/active.md for the active
story. If found, confirm: "Continuing work on [story title] — is that correct?"
If not found, ask: "Which story are we implementing?" Glob
production/epics/**/*.md and list stories with Status: Ready.
Phase 2: Load Full Context
Before loading any context, resolve the workflow tier for this story's system (see the Workflow tier note above), then verify required files exist. Extract the ADR path from the story's ADR Governing Implementation field. The "If missing — full" column is the baseline; the tier columns relax it:
| File | Path | If missing — full | standard | minimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TR registry | docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml | STOP — "TR registry not found at docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml. Run /architecture-review to bootstrap the registry from your GDDs and ADRs." | optional — proceed without it | not expected — proceed |
| Governing ADR | path from story's ADR field | STOP — "ADR file [path] not found. Run /architecture-decision to create it, or correct the filename in the story's ADR field." Also STOP if its ## Status is Proposed — "ADR [path] is still Proposed. Accept it with /architecture-decision accept [ADR-id] before implementing." A story whose ADR field reads N/A (N/A — [reason]) references none — proceed. | STOP only if the story references an ADR and its file is missing/Proposed/Deprecated/Superseded; if it references none, proceed | no ADR required — proceed; STOP only if the story references an ADR whose file is missing/Proposed/Deprecated/Superseded |
| Control manifest | docs/architecture/control-manifest.md | WARN and continue — "Control manifest not found — layer rules cannot be checked. Run /create-control-manifest." | WARN and continue | skip — not expected |
At full, if the TR registry is missing, or a referenced governing ADR is missing or Proposed, set the story status to BLOCKED in the session state and do not spawn any programmer agent. At standard/minimal, only a story that references an ADR whose file is missing, Proposed, Deprecated or Superseded is set BLOCKED; a missing TR registry, or an absent-by-design ADR, does not block — implement against the story's acceptance criteria + the GDD/brief.
Read the story file and the TR registry simultaneously — these two are genuinely independent, unconditional reads. The governing ADR is not part of this batch — do not include it in the same parallel tool-call group as these two. Its own section below is a gate, not a read: whether the ADR gets opened at all depends on a freshness check that itself depends on the story file already being read. Do not start implementation until this phase is fully resolved:
The story file
Extract and hold:
- Story title, ID, layer, type (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data)
- TR-ID — the GDD requirement identifier
- Governing ADR reference
- ADR Version stamp embedded in story header (absent on pre-stamp stories)
- ADR Decision Summary and Implementation Notes — the distilled ADR guidance; this is the primary source for what the ADR decided
- Manifest Version embedded in story header
- Acceptance Criteria — every checkbox item, verbatim
- Implementation Notes — the ADR guidance section in the story
- Out of Scope boundaries
- Test Evidence — the required test file path
- Dependencies — what must be DONE before this story
The TR registry
Grep the story's TR-ID from docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml
(Grep pattern="id: <TR-ID>" path="docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml" output_mode="content" -A 6)
rather than reading the whole cross-system registry. Read the matched entry's current
requirement text — this is the source of truth for what the GDD requires now. Do not
rely on any inline text in the story file (may be stale).
The governing ADR
Do not open the ADR by default. /create-stories already distilled it into
this story's **ADR Decision Summary** + ## Implementation Notes, and its
template states the contract outright: "This is what the programmer reads
instead of the ADR." Re-reading the source here discards that work and, on an
ADR past the 25k Read cap, costs a failed read plus offset/limit retries
before implementation even starts.
Check status and freshness with one line, not one file. Resolve the ADR path from the story, then:
Grep pattern="^## (Status|Last Verified|Date)" path="docs/architecture/[adr-file].md" output_mode="content" -A 2
The ## Status line decides first: if it reads Proposed, the story is BLOCKED
per the file-check table above — stop here, before any freshness comparison.
Deprecated or Superseded by ADR-XXXX blocks the same way, at every tier:
"ADR [path] is [status]; point the story at [successor] (edit its ADR field —
/create-stories never rewrites an existing story) before implementing."
Then resolve the ADR's current version the way /create-stories stamped it:
its ## Last Verified date, else its ## Date, else unversioned. Compare that
value against the story's **ADR Version** field:
| Result | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Versions match (a date on both sides) | The summary was distilled from the ADR as it stands. | Trust the story. Do not read the ADR. |
Story has no ADR Version field | A story written before the stamp existed — not evidence of staleness. | Trust the story, and note in the Phase 6 summary: "Story predates the ADR Version stamp; summary trusted unverified." |
Both read unversioned | The ADR has neither ## Last Verified nor ## Date. Consistent, not stale — but nothing to compare. | Trust the story; note "ADR carries no date; summary trusted unverified." in the Phase 6 summary, and recommend /architecture-decision retrofit [file], which adds a missing ## Date. |
The ADR resolves to unversioned but the story names a date | Ambiguous — the ADR lost the field the story was stamped from. | Treat as mismatch (below). |
| Versions differ | The ADR changed after this story was written. | Mismatch — resolve below. |
Never treat an absent stamp as a stale one. A missing field means "unknown",
and the fallback for unknown is the story, not a 35k-token re-read — the two
staleness gates that already exist (/story-readiness on Manifest Version,
/code-review post-implementation) are what make that safe.
On mismatch, use AskUserQuestion — same shape as the Manifest Version
check below:
- Prompt: "Story was written against ADR v[story-date]. The ADR is now v[current-date]. Its decision may have changed. How do you want to proceed?"
- Options:
[A] Re-read the changed ADR sections, implement against current guidance, and refresh this story's ADR summary and ADR Version (Recommended)[B] Implement from the story's summary — I accept the drift risk[C] Stop — I want to review the ADR diff first
If [A]: first check the ADR's size — Bash: wc -c "docs/architecture/[adr-file].md":
- Under ~50KB — read the whole file with one
Readcall. At this size one read is cheaper than the multi-grep path — per-call overhead outweighs the content saved. Targeted reading only pays for itself on files big enough to threaten the 25k-tokenReadcap. - ~50KB or larger — read only the sections that govern implementation,
never the whole file:
Escalate to a boundedGrep pattern="^## (Decision|Engine Compatibility|ADR Dependencies)" path="docs/architecture/[adr-file].md" output_mode="content" -A 40Read(offset, limit)on one section only if a scanned section cross-references material outside itself.
Then make the story edit that option [A] names: set its ADR Version to the ADR's
current version resolved above — not today's date, or the next run mismatches
again — and replace its **ADR Decision Summary** and ## Implementation Notes
with the guidance you just read, so a later run that trusts the stamp is trusting
current guidance.
If [B]: proceed on the summary; record it in the Phase 6 "Deviations" summary.
If [C]: stop. Do not spawn any agent.
The control manifest
Read only this story's layer from docs/architecture/control-manifest.md — grep that one
section (Grep pattern="^## <layer> Layer Rules" path="docs/architecture/control-manifest.md" output_mode="content" -A 40) rather than a full read of every layer. Extract the rules for this story's layer:
- Required patterns
- Forbidden patterns
- Performance guardrails
Check: does the story's embedded Manifest Version match the current manifest header date?
If they differ, use AskUserQuestion before proceeding:
- Prompt: "Story was written against manifest v[story-date]. Current manifest is v[current-date]. New rules may apply. How do you want to proceed?"
- Options:
[A] Update story manifest version and implement with current rules (Recommended)[B] Implement with old rules — I accept the risk of non-compliance (the story records the current Manifest Version and a Manifest-Note)[C] Stop here — I want to review the manifest diff first
If [A]: edit the story file's Manifest Version: field to the current manifest date before spawning the programmer. Then read the manifest carefully for new rules.
If [B]: edit the story file's Manifest Version: field to the current manifest date AND add a Manifest-Note: Proceeded with old manifest rules on [date] — non-compliance risk accepted. line to the story header. Read the manifest for new rules anyway. Note the decision in the Phase 6 summary under "Deviations". /story-done will include the Manifest-Note in its deviations section without re-checking staleness.
If [C]: stop. Do not spawn any agent. Let the user review and re-run /dev-story.
Dependency validation
After extracting the Dependencies list from the story file, validate each:
- Glob
production/epics/**/*.mdto find each dependency story file. - Read its
Status:field. - If any dependency has Status other than
CompleteorDone:- Use
AskUserQuestion:- Prompt: "Story '[current story]' depends on '[dependency title]' which is currently [status], not Complete. How do you want to proceed?"
- Options:
[A] Proceed anyway — I accept the dependency risk[B] Stop — I'll complete the dependency first[C] The dependency is done but status wasn't updated — mark it Complete and continue
- If [B]: set story status to BLOCKED in session state and stop. Do not spawn any programmer agent.
- If [C]: ask "May I update [dependency path] Status to Complete?" before continuing.
- If [A]: note in Phase 6 summary under "Deviations": "Implemented with incomplete dependency: [dependency title] — [status]."
- Use
If a dependency file cannot be found: warn "Dependency story not found: [path]. Verify the path or create the story file."
Engine reference
Read from project.yaml first, falling back to .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md for any key absent or empty:
specialists.*— the project's chosen specialist agents; read beforeengine.namewhen selecting an agent (see Phase 3)engine.name(else theEngine:value) — the generic engine specialist, and the fallback whenspecialistsis absentnaming.*(else Naming conventions) — class names, file names, signal/event namesperformance.*(else Performance budgets) — frame budget, memory ceiling- Forbidden patterns — from
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md(not migrated to project.yaml)
Mark Story In Progress
Before spawning any agent, mark the story In Progress. In collaborative mode
ask once first — "May I mark this story In Progress? This sets Status: and
Last Updated: in [story-path] and its entry in production/sprint-status.yaml."
(leave the sprint-status file out of the question when it does not exist);
guided and autonomous update these existing files without asking
(.claude/docs/automation-modes.md). If the user declines, change neither file,
print Story not marked In Progress — declined in the Phase 6 summary, and
continue. Otherwise update two things:
-
production/sprint-status.yaml(if it exists): find the entry matching this story's file path and setstatus: in-progress. Update the top-levelupdatedfield to today's date. If the file does not exist, say so in one line —Sprint status not updated: production/sprint-status.yaml absent— and continue. Do not skip silently:/sprint-statusreads that file to report progress, so a story that never gets markedin-progressis invisible to the very command a producer uses to ask what is moving. -
The story file itself: set the story header's
Status:field toIn Progress, and edit itsLast Updated:field to today's date (format:YYYY-MM-DD; if the field does not exist, add it after theStatus:line). SettingStatus:here is what actually marks the story In Progress — atminimalthesprint-status.yamlin step 1 is absent, so the story file is the only record of progress at that tier.
Phase 3: Route to the Right Programmer
Based on the story's Layer, Type, and system name, determine which
specialist to spawn via Agent.
Config/Data stories — skip agent spawning entirely:
If the story's Type is Config/Data, no programmer agent or engine specialist is needed. Jump directly to Phase 4 (Config/Data note). The implementation is a data file edit — no routing table evaluation, no engine specialist.
Primary agent routing table
| Story context | Primary agent |
|---|---|
| Foundation layer — any type | engine-programmer |
| Any layer — Type: UI | ui-programmer |
| Any layer — Type: Visual/Feel | gameplay-programmer (implements) |
| Core or Feature — gameplay mechanics | gameplay-programmer |
| Core or Feature — AI behaviour, pathfinding | ai-programmer |
| Core or Feature — networking, replication | network-programmer |
| Config/Data — no code | No agent needed (see Phase 4 Config note) |
Engine specialist — always spawn as secondary for code stories
Read the specialists block from project.yaml directly — it is not in
the resolve_config output at the top of this skill.. resolve_config does not emit
specialists.*; the five skills that already consume it (/adopt,
/code-review, /design-system, /gate-check, /team-ui) all read the block
out of project.yaml themselves, and so does this one. Adding it to the
frontmatter key list would fail the gate that asserts every requested key is one
resolve_config actually emits.
/setup-engine writes the block, and it is the project's own answer to "which
specialist implements here" — resolved from the engine and the language, which
engine.name alone cannot tell you. Resolve in this order:
specialists.code— the language/code specialist, and the right secondary for an implementation story. This is the value that distinguishes a Godot C# project (godot-csharp-specialist) from a Godot GDScript one (godot-gdscript-specialist);engine.nameisGodotfor both.specialists.shaderwhen the story touches shaders or materials, andspecialists.uiwhen the story's Type isUI— in addition to, not instead of,specialists.code.- The generic
<engine>-specialist— derived fromengine.name(Godot→godot-specialist, Unity→unity-specialist, Unreal→unreal-specialist) — for architecture-level and broad engine concerns, and as the fallback when thespecialistsblock is absent. - If
engine.nameis also absent or empty, read the Primary line of the## Engine Specialistssection of.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md.
A value of null means UNSET — treat that key as absent and fall through to
the generic specialist. Never spawn it as an agent name. The config reader
returns the four-character string "null", which is not empty and therefore
reads as configured; null, empty and missing are the same state here. (This is
the same caveat /code-review Phase 2 carries, for the same reason.)
Spawn the resolved specialist alongside the primary agent when the story involves engine-specific APIs, patterns, or the ADR has HIGH engine risk.
The full roster, for reference when no specialists block exists:
| Engine | Specialist agents available |
|---|---|
| Godot 4 | godot-specialist, godot-gdscript-specialist, godot-csharp-specialist, godot-shader-specialist, godot-gdextension-specialist |
| Unity | unity-specialist, unity-ui-specialist, unity-shader-specialist, unity-dots-specialist, unity-addressables-specialist |
| Unreal Engine | unreal-specialist, ue-gas-specialist, ue-blueprint-specialist, ue-umg-specialist, ue-replication-specialist |
Do not pick from this table when
specialistsis set. The table lists what exists for an engine; the block records what this project chose. Reading the table instead of the block is how a Godot C# project ends up reviewed by the GDScript specialist.
When engine risk is HIGH (from the ADR or VERSION.md): always spawn the engine specialist, even for non-engine-facing stories. High risk means the ADR records assumptions about post-cutoff engine APIs that need expert verification.
Read the risk, do not trust the story card alone. If the story's
Riskfield is absent, or saysNOT ASSESSED, or disagrees withdocs/engine-reference/<engine>/VERSION.md, the VERSION.md rating wins and an unknown counts as HIGH. Atminimalthere is no ADR, so VERSION.md is the only source; a story card carrying an improvisedMEDIUMagainst a VERSION.md rating of HIGH would skip this spawn without saying so./create-storiesnow derives the field from the same file, so the two should agree; this check is what catches it when they do not.
Phase 4: Implement
Spawn the chosen programmer agent(s) via Agent with the full context package:
Brief the agent with file paths and targeted reading instructions — do not serialize document content into the Agent prompt. The agent reads what it needs directly.
Tier note (from Phase 2): items 2–4 below assume the
fullbaseline. Atstandard, include the TR registry only if it exists and the governing ADR only where the story references one — at any tier, a story whose ADR field readsN/Ahas no item 3. Atminimal, the TR registry, ADR, and control manifest are typically absent — omit items 2–4 and brief the agent to implement against the story's Acceptance Criteria and the GDD/brief (the story file from item 1). Never instruct the agent to read a file Phase 2 confirmed missing.Say which items you dropped, and say it to both readers. The rule item 7 already carries applies unchanged to items 2–4: an omitted item and a forgotten one are indistinguishable to the agent. They are equally indistinguishable to the user reading the Phase 6 summary.
- To the agent, in the prompt: "No TR registry entry is passed for this story —
docs/architecture/tr-registry.yamldoes not exist at this tier. Implement against the story's Acceptance Criteria and the GDD/brief. Do not go looking for it." Same form for an absent ADR or control manifest.- To the user, one line before spawning:
Briefing omits: TR registry (absent), ADR guidance (story references no ADR), control manifest (absent) — implementing against acceptance criteria + GDD.Without this, a
standardrun where the registry legitimately does not exist and one where/architecture-reviewwas supposed to bootstrap it and nobody did produce identical output.
- Story file:
[story-path]— the agent reads this one file; it carries the acceptance criteria, Out of Scope boundaries, and QA test cases - GDD requirement: look up TR-ID
[TR-XXX-NNN]indocs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml— use therequirementfield as source of truth - ADR guidance: pass the story's
**ADR Decision Summary**and## Implementation Notesinline in the prompt — do not pass the ADR path. Phase 2 already established that this summary is current; handing the agent a path makes it re-read the whole ADR in its own context, paying the cost this skill just avoided. After mismatch option[A], pass the guidance freshly read from the ADR's## Decision(the text [A] just wrote into the story), never the stale summary the story carried before; after[B], pass the story's summary and tell the agent it predates the current ADR. - Control manifest:
docs/architecture/control-manifest.md— read rules for the [layer] layer only - Engine preferences:
naming.*andperformance.*fromproject.yaml(for any key absent or empty, fall back to.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md) - Test file path:
[path from story's Test Evidence section]— this file must be created as part of implementation - Test requirement (Logic and Integration stories only; omit this entire item at
qa.level: minimal— tests are not required there. When you omit it for a Logic or Integration story, tell the agent so explicitly — never a UI, Visual/Feel or Config/Data story, which this item never covered: "Do not write a test file for this story — test evidence is waived atqa.level: minimal." An omitted item and a forgotten one are indistinguishable to the agent, and a programmer briefed with no test instruction may write tests anyway, or may silently assume they were meant to): The test file MUST be created at[path from the story's Test Evidence section]. Write the test alongside the implementation — do not defer it. Atqa.level: standard/fullthe story cannot be closed via/story-donewithout this file present. Each acceptance criterion must have at least one test function covering it. Test naming per engine, from.claude/rules/test-standards.md: Godottest_[scenario]_[expected]in[system]_[feature]_test.gd; Unity[Scenario]_[Expected]in a[System]Testsclass; Unreal<Project>.[System].[Scenario]. No random seeds, no time-dependent assertions, no external I/O. - Explicit instruction: implement this story following the ADR guidelines, respect the manifest rules, stay within the story's Out of Scope boundaries. Write clean, doc-commented public APIs.
The agent should:
- Create or modify files under the resolved code root following the ADR guidelines. Resolve it per
.claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md—src/is the Godot row,Assets/Scripts/<System>/is Unity's,Source/<Module>/<System>/is Unreal's. If the code root cannot be resolved, do not write: report it and stop. Selecting the engine specialist above is NOT the same as resolving the code root - Respect all Required and Forbidden patterns from the control manifest
- Stay within the story's Out of Scope boundaries (do not touch unrelated files)
- Write clean, doc-commented public APIs
Config/Data stories (no agent needed)
For Type: Config/Data stories, no programmer agent is required. The implementation is editing a data file. Read the story's acceptance criteria, show the specified changes as from → to values, and ask "May I write to [data file path]?" before editing it directly. Note which values were changed and what they changed from/to.
Visual/Feel stories
Spawn gameplay-programmer to implement the code/animation calls. The look
half of the acceptance criteria — layout, clipping, presence, colour — is
verified in Phase 6 step 4 by launching the build and retaining a screenshot;
it is not deferred. The feel half — timing, weight, responsiveness — is not
something a still can show: say which half the run covered, and leave feel to
/team-qa.
Phase 5: Test Evidence Requirements
The test requirement was included in the Phase 4 programmer agent brief (item 7). This phase summarizes what evidence each story type requires — used when collecting the Phase 6 summary.
Skip this phase at qa.level: minimal (resolved earlier) — no test evidence
is required, so there is nothing to gate; do not flag the story unverifiable for a
missing test. The Visual/Feel and UI screenshot line at the end of this phase
still applies — qa.level waives tests, never the look.
Say so in the Phase 6 summary. A skipped phase must announce itself in the output, not only in this file (
.claude/rules/skill-authoring.md, obligation 3). For a Logic or Integration story — the types Phase 4 item 7 briefs a test for — emit the line:Test evidence: waived at
qa.level: minimal— no test was required or written for this story.Without it, a minimal-tier summary that simply lacks a tests row is indistinguishable from a
standard-tier run where the programmer forgot to write them — and the permissive reading is the one that gets believed.
Otherwise:
Resolve the gate level for this story's type from testing.strict in
project.yaml. BLOCKING means a missing test marks the story unverifiable;
ADVISORY means a missing test is noted but does not block:
- Map the Story Type to a
testing.strictkey — Logic→logic, Integration→integration, Visual/Feel→visual, UI→ui, Config/Data→config. Taketesting.strict.<key>from the the resolved-config block at the top of this skill, not fromproject.yamldirectly. If its value istrue(case-insensitive) → BLOCKING; iffalse→ ADVISORY;unset→ fall through.
testing.strict.*is locally overridable (/settings --local testing.strict.logic=false). Readingproject.yamlon its own ignoresproject.local.yamlentirely, so the override is accepted and then does nothing.resolve_configmerges the two.
- Else read
testing.strictas a plain boolean (legacy single-value form) — if its value istrueorfalse, it applies to every type. - Else use the Default Gate Level column below.
Only true and false (case-insensitive) are recognized at steps 1–2. A key
that is present but holds any other value — maybe, 1, yes, etc. — is
treated as unset: continue to the next step, and surface the unrecognized value
to the user.
| Story Type | Required Evidence | Default Gate Level |
|---|---|---|
| Logic | Automated unit test at path from story's Test Evidence section | BLOCKING |
| Integration | Integration test OR documented playtest record | BLOCKING |
| Visual/Feel | Retained screenshot + evidence doc at production/qa/evidence/[slug]-evidence.md | BLOCKING |
| UI | Retained screenshot of each screen touched, in production/qa/evidence/ | BLOCKING |
| Config/Data | None — smoke check serves as evidence | ADVISORY |
The test is written alongside the implementation (Phase 4, item 7) regardless of
the gate level — strictness controls only how a missing test is reported in the
Phase 6 summary. At a BLOCKING level, a missing test is flagged "story
unverifiable — test required before /story-done". At an ADVISORY level it is
noted as a recommendation. The Default Gate Level column applies when
testing.strict is unset.
Visual/Feel and UI default to BLOCKING: for a game the rendered result is the
product, and an advisory visual gate gets deferred in favour of whatever does
block. A project that genuinely does not need it sets testing.strict.visual or
testing.strict.ui to false.
For Visual/Feel and UI stories, include in the Phase 6 summary: "Retained screenshot required under production/qa/evidence/[story-slug]/ before this story can be closed — at the default BLOCKING level a story with no screenshot on disk is unverifiable." For Visual/Feel, add that the sign-off in production/qa/evidence/[slug]-evidence.md is also required.
Phase 6: Collect and Summarise
First: did the agent actually finish?
Do not assume completion. A programmer agent can stop at its turn limit mid-edit, and the work it leaves behind can be syntactically broken — a helper called but never defined, an import half-moved. Its partial report reads like progress, and this phase's summary would print "Implementation Complete" over code that does not load.
Before collecting anything:
- Check the agent's own terminal state. If it reported stopping early, hit a turn/step limit, or its report ends mid-task, treat the story as INCOMPLETE.
- Verify the output parses. Run the check whose exit code answers the
question — an exit 0 from a command that does not check is how broken code
gets reported as clean:
- Godot:
godot --headless --path . --importonce (it builds the class cache), then one run over every.gdthe story added or changed:godot --headless --path . -s res://.claude/scripts/godot-parse-check.gd -- res://<file>.gd …. Forgodot, use the executablecommands.testnames, else the editorengine.pathrecords, elsegodotonPATH; if none resolves, writeparse NOT VERIFIED — Godot executable not found. Exit 1 means a script did not load — itsPARSE FAIL:line names it, with Godot's error above. Do not use--check-only: it fails valid code that names an autoload.--importand--quit-afteron their own exit 0 on a parse error — they are not parse checks. - Unity:
commands.smoke(-batchmode -quit -projectPath . -logFile -) — exit 1 witherror CS…lines when a script does not compile. - Unreal: build the editor target —
"<UE root>/Engine/Binaries/DotNET/UnrealBuildTool/UnrealBuildTool.exe" <Project>Editor Win64 Development -Project="<absolute path>/<Project>.uproject"on Windows; on Linux"<UE root>/Engine/Build/BatchFiles/Linux/Build.sh" <Project>Editor Linux Development -Project=…, on macOS…/Mac/Build.sh <Project>Editor Mac Development -Project=…(from Epic's documentation —docs/engine-reference/unreal/current-best-practices.md, "Command Line"). A compile error fails the build (Result: Failed, non-zero exit). Report what you ran, its exit code, and any error lines.
- Godot:
- If the engine binary is unavailable, write
parse NOT VERIFIED — engine binary not available. Do not infer that the code is fine because it reads correctly; that inference is exactly what this step exists to replace. - Run it and look. A parse check is not a run. For every story that
changes something a player can see — every Visual/Feel and UI story, and any
Logic, Integration or Config/Data story with a surface — launch the build
via
commands.run, straight into the scene or map the story touched, and retain a screenshot underproduction/qa/evidence/[story-slug]/. ThenReadthe image and compare it to the acceptance criteria: clipped text, an overflowing panel, a missing element are defects, and this is the only step that finds them. Procedure per engine, including how to capture unattended in Godot, Unity and Unreal:.claude/docs/run-and-observe.md. On Unity the capture needs theScreenshotOnArg.csscript that file gives verbatim. If the project has none (GlobAssets/**/ScreenshotOnArg.cs), ask "May I writeAssets/Scripts/ScreenshotOnArg.cs?" and write it exactly as given there before launching; if the user declines, nothing can capture — reportRun result: NOT VERIFIED — ScreenshotOnArg.cs not written. Report exactly one line —Run result: OBSERVED — <what was on screen>with the retained path,Run result: NOT VERIFIED — <reason>, orRun result: N/A — <reason>for a story with genuinely nothing observable.NOT VERIFIEDis a blocker at the default gate level for Visual/Feel and UI, not a note —/story-donereads this line. This step is not waived atqa.level: minimal; tests are, the look is not.
If INCOMPLETE: say so as the headline, list what exists so far, name the specific breakage, and offer to resume the agent. Do not emit "Implementation Complete", and do not advance the story's status.
Then collect:
- Files created or modified (with paths)
- Verification result — what was run, and its outcome (or why it could not run)
- Test file created (path and number of test functions written) — or, at
qa.level: minimal, the waiver line from Phase 5 - Any deviations from the story's Out of Scope boundary (flag these)
- Any questions or blockers the agent surfaced
- Any engine-specific risks the specialist flagged
Present a concise implementation summary:
## Implementation Complete: [Story Title]
**Files changed**:
- `<code root>/[path]` — created / modified ([brief description])
- `tests/[path]` — test file ([N] test functions) — *omit this line at
`qa.level: minimal` and print the Phase 5 waiver line instead (Logic/Integration)*
**Verification**: [what was run] — [result, or `NOT VERIFIED — <reason>`]
**Run result**: [`OBSERVED — <what was on screen>` + retained path | `NOT VERIFIED — <reason>` | `N/A — <reason>`] — see `.claude/docs/run-and-observe.md`
**Acceptance criteria covered**:
- [x] [criterion] — implemented in [file:function]
- [x] [criterion] — covered by test [test_name]
- [x] [criterion] — OBSERVED in `production/qa/evidence/[slug]/01-[what].png` (Visual/UI look)
- [ ] [criterion] — DEFERRED: requires playtest (Visual/Feel *feel* — timing, weight; a still cannot show it)
**Deviations from scope**: [None] or [list files touched outside story boundary]
**Engine risks flagged**: [None] or [specialist finding]
**Blockers**: [None] or [describe]
**Before running `/story-done`:** run your test suite locally and confirm the tests you wrote pass. *(At `qa.level: minimal` no tests were written — print the Phase 5 waiver line here instead of this paragraph for a Logic or Integration story, and omit both for any other type. Telling a user to confirm the passing of tests that do not exist is worse than saying nothing.)* **`/story-done` does NOT re-run them** — its Phase 3 checks that the test FILE exists, with `Glob`, and nothing executes it. A test that exists and fails satisfies that gate. Nothing downstream makes the local run safe to skip. Pass/fail is established by `/gate-check` and `/smoke-check`, both of which execute a suite — and both come later than story closure.
Ready for: `/story-done [story-path]` — at `standard`/`full`, `/code-review [file1] [file2]` first
Phase 7: Update Session State
Silently update the checkpoint in production/session-state/active.md —
overwrite the <!-- CHECKPOINT --> … <!-- /CHECKPOINT --> block, never
append (schema: .claude/docs/templates/session-state.md). session-start.sh
shows exactly that block when the next session opens, so it is what a cold
resume starts from:
<!-- CHECKPOINT -->
**Updated:** [date]
**Branch:** `[current git branch]`
**Current task:** /dev-story — [story-path] ([story title])
**Next step:** /story-done [story-path] (at standard/full: /code-review [files] first)
**Blocked on:** [nothing, or the blocker]
**Files in progress:** [files changed, comma-separated; test file included]
**Run result:** [the Phase 6 `Run result:` line, verbatim — `/story-done` reads it here]
**Open questions:** [none, or one line each]
<!-- /CHECKPOINT -->
Next step follows the Phase 6 result — the line above is the Implementation
Complete one. On INCOMPLETE write
**Next step:** /dev-story [story-path] — resume: [the breakage Phase 6 named].
On BLOCKED (Phase 2) write the unblocking action instead —
/architecture-decision accept ADR-NNNN, the dependency story to finish, the
manifest diff to review — and fill Blocked on. /help reads this line: a
checkpoint that says /story-done tells it the work is written.
If active.md does not exist, create it from the template. If it exists with no
markers (a file from before the schema), insert the template's STATUS and
CHECKPOINT blocks at the top and leave the rest untouched. Confirm: "Session
state updated."
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 "cannot 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 cannot complete: surface it
immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a
partial report. Full procedure: .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md.
Common blockers:
- Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
- A referenced ADR's status is Proposed → do not implement; accept it with
/architecture-decision accept ADR-NNNNonce decided (a story that references no ADR is not blocked on this — see Phase 2) - Scope too large → split into two stories via
/create-stories - Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess
- Manifest version mismatch → show diff to user, ask whether to proceed with old rules or update story first
Collaborative Protocol
Applies in collaborative mode (the default). For guided and
autonomous modes, see .claude/docs/automation-modes.md — the rules below
describe what collaborative mode requires, not universal behavior.
-
File writes are delegated — all source code, test files, and evidence docs are written by sub-agents spawned via
Agent. Each sub-agent enforces the "May I write to [path]?" protocol individually. This orchestrator writes only the following, each after an ask that names it:- the story's
Status:/Last Updated:and itsproduction/sprint-status.yamlentry — the one "May I mark this story In Progress?" ask (Phase 2) - the story's
ADR Version,**ADR Decision Summary**and## Implementation Notes(ADR mismatch option [A]), and itsManifest Version:/Manifest-Note:(manifest option [A] or [B]) — each option names that edit, so choosing it is the ask - a dependency story's
Status: Complete(dependency option [C], then "May I update [dependency path] Status to Complete?") - a Config/Data story's data file ("May I write to [path]?")
- on Unity,
Assets/Scripts/ScreenshotOnArg.cs, written verbatim from.claude/docs/run-and-observe.md("May I writeAssets/Scripts/ScreenshotOnArg.cs?", Phase 6)
The session-state checkpoint in
production/session-state/active.mdis the one write made without an ask. - the story's
-
Load before implementing — do not start coding until all context is loaded (story, TR-ID, ADR, manifest, engine prefs). Incomplete context produces code that drifts from design.
-
The ADR is the law — implementation must follow the ADR's Implementation Guidelines. If the guidelines conflict with what seems "better," flag it in the summary rather than silently deviating.
-
Stay in scope — the Out of Scope section is a contract. If implementing the story requires touching an out-of-scope file, stop and surface it: "Implementing [criterion] requires modifying [file], which is out of scope. Shall I proceed or create a separate story?"
-
Test is not optional for Logic/Integration (at
qa.level: standard/full) — do not mark implementation complete without the test file existing. Atqa.level: minimaltests are not required and this does not apply. -
Visual/Feel and UI looks are observed, not deferred — the Phase 6 run retains the screenshot (each screen touched for UI; Visual/Feel also needs a lead sign-off before
/story-done), andqa.levelnever waives either. Only the feel half of a Visual/Feel criterion — timing, weight, responsiveness — is marked DEFERRED, for/team-qa -
Ask before large structural decisions — if the story requires an architectural pattern not covered by the ADR, surface it before implementing: "The ADR doesn't specify how to handle [case]. My plan is [X]. Proceed?"
Recommended Next Steps
- At
standard/full, run/code-review [file1] [file2]to review the implementation before closing the story (not part of the minimal loop) - Run
/story-done [story-path]to verify acceptance criteria and mark the story complete - With a sprint plan, after all sprint stories are done: run
/team-qa sprintfor the full QA cycle before advancing the project stage. Atminimal,/story-donenames the next story instead
How can the creator link this skill?
Add the canonical catalog link to the repository README so users can inspect current installs and available audits. The publishing guide covers the complete discovery path.
<a href="https://skillzs.dev/skills/donchitos/claude-code-game-studios/dev-story">View dev-story on skillZs</a>