Phase Gate Validation

This skill validates whether the project is ready to advance to the next development phase. It checks for required artifacts, quality standards, and blockers.

Distinct from /project-stage-detect: That skill is diagnostic ("where are we?"). This skill is prescriptive ("are we ready to advance?" with a formal verdict).

Production Stages (7)

The project progresses through these stages:

0. Exploration — Pre-workflow: rapid prototyping multiple ideas (/explore)
1. Concept — Brainstorming, game concept document
2. Systems Design — Mapping systems, writing GDDs
3. Technical Setup — Engine config, architecture decisions
4. Pre-Production — Prototyping, vertical slice validation
5. Production — Feature development (Epic/Feature/Task tracking active)
6. Polish — Performance, playtesting, bug fixing
7. Release — Launch prep, certification

Special gate: workflow-selection — Only valid from the Exploration stage. When it passes, it sets both production/workflow-mode.txt (hybrid or full) and production/stage.txt (Concept). See the Workflow Selection gate below.

---

1. Parse Arguments

Target phase: $ARGUMENTS[0] (blank = auto-detect current stage, then validate next transition)

Also resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):

1. If --review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use that
2. Else read production/review-mode.txt → use that value
3. Else → default to lean

Note: in solo mode, director spawns (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE) are skipped — gate-check becomes artifact-existence checks only. In lean mode, all four directors still run (phase gates are the purpose of lean mode).

• With argument: /gate-check production — validate readiness for that specific phase /gate-check workflow-selection — run workflow selection (only valid from exploration stage)

• No argument: Auto-detect current stage using the same heuristics as /project-stage-detect, then confirm with the user before running:

  Use question:

  • Prompt: "Detected stage: [current stage]. Running gate for [Current] → [Next] transition. Is this correct?"
  • Options:
    • [A] Yes — run this gate
    • [B] No — pick a different gate (if selected, show a second widget listing all gate options: Workflow Selection, Concept → Systems Design, Systems Design → Technical Setup, Technical Setup → Pre-Production, Pre-Production → Production, Production → Polish, Polish → Release)

  Special case — exploration stage: If auto-detect returns exploration, the only valid gate is workflow-selection. Skip the confirmation widget and proceed directly to the Workflow Selection gate.

---

2. Phase Gate Definitions

Gate: Workflow Selection (Exploration → Hybrid or Full)

This is a pre-workflow gate. It does not validate artifacts — it helps the user decide which development workflow fits their project after prototyping ideas with /explore. Unlike all other gates, this gate writes TWO files on PASS: production/workflow-mode.txt and production/stage.txt.

Run this when: production/stage.txt reads exploration, or explicitly with /gate-check workflow-selection.

Required Artifacts:

• At least 1 prototype report in prototypes/explore/*/REPORT.md (or in prototypes/*/REPORT.md from earlier prototyping)
• Reports have a clear verdict (PROMISING / NEEDS_WORK / NOT_VIABLE / TIMEOUT)

Decision Interview

Skip artifact scanning — this gate is human-driven. Use question to ask each question. Present one at a time, tally the score, then recommend. Record the user's answers but do not write them to a file — the output is the recommendation.

Question 1 — Team size:

• Prompt: "How many people are working on this project?"
• Options:
  • Solo — Just me (score: 0)
  • Small team — 2-5 people (score: 1)
  • Medium team — 6-10 people (score: 2)
  • Large team — 10+ people (score: 3)

Question 2 — Timeline:

• Prompt: "What's your target timeline to a shippable game?"
• Options:
  • Short — Under 3 months (score: 0)
  • Medium — 3-6 months (score: 1)
  • Long — 6-12 months (score: 2)
  • Extended — 12+ months (score: 3)

Question 3 — Design clarity:

• Prompt: "How well-defined is your game design at this point?"
• Options:
  • Rough concept — A theme and a mechanic, but no details (score: 0)
  • Some systems — Core loop and 2-3 major systems sketched (score: 1)
  • Mostly designed — Core systems, economy, and progression mapped (score: 2)
  • Fully documented — Full GDDs ready to build from (score: 3)

Question 4 — External requirements:

• Prompt: "Do you have publisher, investor, or platform requirements?"
• Options:
  • None — Self-funded, no external obligations (score: 0)
  • Informal — A publisher is interested but no contract yet (score: 1)
  • Contractual — Signed deal with milestone deliverables (score: 2)
  • Multi-platform — Strict cert requirements across platforms (score: 3)

Question 5 — Team experience:

• Prompt: "What's your team's experience level with shipping games?"
• Options:
  • First game — No shipped titles (score: 0)
  • Small games — Shipped jam games or small commercial titles (score: 1)
  • Experienced — Shipped 1-3 commercial titles (score: 2)
  • Veteran — Shipped 3+ commercial titles (score: 3)

Scoring

After all 5 questions, calculate the total score (0-15):

• Score 0-5: Recommend Hybrid workflow — lightweight discovery phase, then production with reduced agent roster. Best for small teams, unknown designs, and short timelines.
• Score 6-10: Recommend Hybrid with upgrade path — start with Hybrid, but be ready to upgrade to Full OCGS as scope grows. Set workflow-mode to hybrid but note the upgrade triggers.
• Score 11-15: Recommend Full OCGS workflow — formal GDDs, ADRs, full quality gates, and the complete agent roster. Best for larger teams, funded projects, and long timelines.

Present the recommendation:

## Workflow Selection Result

**Score**: [N]/15

**Recommended workflow**: [Hybrid / Hybrid with upgrade path / Full OCGS]

**Reasoning**:
- Team size ([answer]) → weight toward [workflow]
- Timeline ([answer]) → weight toward [workflow]
- Design clarity ([answer]) → weight toward [workflow]
- External requirements ([answer]) → weight toward [workflow]
- Team experience ([answer]) → weight toward [workflow]

### Next Step
- **If Hybrid**: Begin your concept document with `/concept-brainstorm` or jump straight
  into `/hybrid-prototype` with your winning idea.
- **If Full OCGS**: Run `/concept-brainstorm [winning-idea]` to formalize your concept,
  then `/setup-engine` to configure the engine.

User Confirmation

Use question to confirm:

• Prompt: "Recommended: [Hybrid / Full OCGS]. Does this match your intuition?"
• Options:
  • Yes — proceed with [recommended workflow]
  • No — I prefer the [other workflow] instead
  • Not sure yet — I want to explore more ideas first

Apply the Decision

When the user confirms (Yes or No), write both files:

1. production/workflow-mode.txt — write hybrid or full (single line)
2. production/stage.txt — write Concept (single line)

Always ask before writing: "May I update production/workflow-mode.txt to [workflow] and production/stage.txt to Concept?"

If "Not sure yet", do not write anything. Advise: "Run /explore [next-idea] to prototype more ideas, then return here."

Gate: Concept → Systems Design

Required Artifacts:

• design/gdd/game-concept.md exists and has content
• Game pillars defined (in concept doc or design/gdd/game-pillars.md)
• Visual Identity Anchor section exists in design/gdd/game-concept.md (from brainstorm Phase 4 art-director output)

Quality Checks:

• Game concept has been reviewed (/design-review verdict not MAJOR REVISION NEEDED)
• Core loop is described and understood
• Target audience is identified
• Visual Identity Anchor contains a one-line visual rule and at least 2 supporting visual principles

---

Gate: Systems Design → Technical Setup

Required Artifacts:

• Systems index exists at design/gdd/systems-index.md with at least MVP systems enumerated
• All MVP-tier GDDs exist in design/gdd/ and individually pass /design-review
• A cross-GDD review report exists in design/gdd/ (from /review-all-gdds)

Quality Checks:

• All MVP GDDs pass individual design review (8 required sections, no MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict)
• /review-all-gdds verdict is not FAIL (cross-GDD consistency and design theory checks pass)
• All cross-GDD consistency issues flagged by /review-all-gdds are resolved or explicitly accepted
• System dependencies are mapped in the systems index and are bidirectionally consistent
• MVP priority tier is defined
• No stale GDD references flagged (older GDDs updated to reflect decisions made in later GDDs)

---

Gate: Technical Setup → Pre-Production

Required Artifacts:

• Engine chosen (AGENTS.md Technology Stack is not [CHOOSE])
• Technical preferences configured (docs/framework/technical-preferences.md populated)
• Art bible exists at design/art/art-bible.md with at least Sections 1–4 (Visual Identity Foundation)
• At least 3 Architecture Decision Records in docs/architecture/ covering Foundation-layer systems (scene management, event architecture, save/load)
• Engine reference docs exist in docs/engine-reference/[engine]/
• Test framework initialized: tests/unit/ and tests/integration/ directories exist
• CI/CD test workflow exists at .github/workflows/tests.yml (or equivalent)
• At least one example test file exists to confirm the framework is functional
• Master architecture document exists at docs/architecture/architecture.md
• Architecture traceability index exists at docs/architecture/architecture-traceability.md
• /architecture-review has been run (a review report file exists in docs/architecture/)
• design/accessibility-requirements.md exists with accessibility tier committed
• design/ux/interaction-patterns.md exists (pattern library initialized, even if minimal)

Quality Checks:

• Architecture decisions cover core systems (rendering, input, state management)
• Technical preferences have naming conventions and performance budgets set
• Accessibility tier is defined and documented (even "Basic" is acceptable — undefined is not)
• At least one screen's UX spec started (often the main menu or core HUD is designed during Technical Setup)
• All ADRs have an Engine Compatibility section with engine version stamped
• All ADRs have a GDD Requirements Addressed section with explicit GDD linkage
• No ADR references APIs listed in docs/engine-reference/[engine]/deprecated-apis.md
• All HIGH RISK engine domains (per VERSION.md) have been explicitly addressed in the architecture document or flagged as open questions
• Architecture traceability matrix has zero Foundation layer gaps (all Foundation requirements must have ADR coverage before Pre-Production)

ADR Circular Dependency Check: For all ADRs in docs/architecture/, read each ADR's "ADR Dependencies" / "Depends On" section. Build a dependency graph (ADR-A → ADR-B means A depends on B). If any cycle is detected (e.g. A→B→A, or A→B→C→A):

• Flag as FAIL: "Circular ADR dependency: [ADR-X] → [ADR-Y] → [ADR-X]. Neither can reach Accepted while the cycle exists. Remove one 'Depends On' edge to break the cycle."

Engine Validation (read docs/engine-reference/[engine]/VERSION.md first):

• ADRs that touch post-cutoff engine APIs are flagged with Knowledge Risk: HIGH/MEDIUM
• /architecture-review engine audit shows no deprecated API usage
• All ADRs agree on the same engine version (no stale version references)

---

Gate: Pre-Production → Production

Required Artifacts:

• At least 1 prototype in prototypes/ with a README
• First sprint plan exists in production/sprints/
• Art bible is complete (all 9 sections) and AD-ART-BIBLE sign-off verdict is recorded in design/art/art-bible.md
• Character visual profiles exist for key characters referenced in narrative docs
• All MVP-tier GDDs from systems index are complete
• Master architecture document exists at docs/architecture/architecture.md
• At least 3 ADRs covering Foundation-layer decisions exist in docs/architecture/
• Control manifest exists at docs/architecture/control-manifest.md (generated by /create-control-manifest from Accepted ADRs)
• Epics defined in production/epics/ with at least Foundation and Core layer epics present (use /create-epics layer: foundation and /create-epics layer: core to create them, then /create-stories [epic-slug] for each epic)
• Vertical Slice build exists and is playable (not just scope-defined)
• Vertical Slice has been playtested with at least 3 sessions (internal OK)
• Vertical Slice playtest report exists at production/playtests/ or equivalent
• UX specs exist for key screens: main menu, core gameplay HUD (at design/ux/), pause menu
• HUD design document exists at design/ux/hud.md (if game has in-game HUD)
• All key screen UX specs have passed /ux-review (verdict APPROVED or NEEDS REVISION accepted)

Quality Checks:

• Core loop fun is validated — playtest data confirms the central mechanic is enjoyable, not just functional. Explicitly check the Vertical Slice playtest report.
• UX specs cover all UI Requirements sections from MVP-tier GDDs
• Interaction pattern library documents patterns used in key screens
• Accessibility tier from design/accessibility-requirements.md is addressed in all key screen UX specs
• Sprint plan references real story file paths from production/epics/ (not just GDDs — stories must embed GDD req ID + ADR reference)
• Vertical Slice is COMPLETE, not just scoped — the build demonstrates the full core loop end-to-end. At least one complete [start → challenge → resolution] cycle works.
• Architecture document has no unresolved open questions in Foundation or Core layers
• All ADRs have Engine Compatibility sections stamped with the engine version
• All ADRs have ADR Dependencies sections (even if all fields are "None")
• Manual validation confirms GDDs + architecture + epics are coherent (run /review-all-gdds and /architecture-review if not done recently)
• Core fantasy is delivered — at least one playtester independently described an experience that matches the Player Fantasy section of the core system GDDs (without being prompted).

Vertical Slice Validation (FAIL if any item is NO):

• A human has played through the core loop without developer guidance
• The game communicates what to do within the first 2 minutes of play
• No critical "fun blocker" bugs exist in the Vertical Slice build
• The core mechanic feels good to interact with (this is a subjective check — ask the user)

Note: If any Vertical Slice Validation item is FAIL, the verdict is automatically FAIL regardless of other checks. Advancing without a validated Vertical Slice is the #1 cause of production failure in game development (per GDC postmortem data from 155 projects).

---

Gate: Production → Polish

Required Artifacts:

• src/ has active code organized into subsystems
• All core mechanics from GDD are implemented (cross-reference design/gdd/ with src/)
• Main gameplay path is playable end-to-end
• Test files exist in tests/unit/ and tests/integration/ covering Logic and Integration stories
• All Logic stories from this sprint have corresponding unit test files in tests/unit/
• Smoke check has been run with a PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS verdict — report exists in production/qa/
• QA plan exists in production/qa/ (generated by /qa-plan) covering this sprint or final production sprint
• QA sign-off report exists in production/qa/ (generated by /team-qa) with verdict APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
• At least 3 distinct playtest sessions documented in production/playtests/
• Playtest reports cover: new player experience, mid-game systems, and difficulty curve
• Fun hypothesis from Game Concept has been explicitly validated or revised

Quality Checks:

• Tests are passing (run test suite via Bash)
• No critical/blocker bugs in any bug tracker or known issues
• Core loop plays as designed (compare to GDD acceptance criteria)
• Performance is within budget (check technical-preferences.md targets)
• Playtest findings have been reviewed and critical fun issues addressed (not just documented)
• No "confusion loops" identified — no point in the game where >50% of playtesters got stuck without knowing why
• Difficulty curve matches the Difficulty Curve design doc (if one exists at design/difficulty-curve.md)
• All implemented screens have corresponding UX specs (no "designed in-code" screens)
• Interaction pattern library is up-to-date with all patterns used in implementation
• Accessibility compliance verified against committed tier in design/accessibility-requirements.md

---

Gate: Polish → Release

Required Artifacts:

• All features from milestone plan are implemented
• Content is complete (all levels, assets, dialogue referenced in design docs exist)
• Localization strings are externalized (no hardcoded player-facing text in src/)
• QA test plan exists (/qa-plan output in production/qa/)
• QA sign-off report exists (/team-qa output — APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
• All Must Have story test evidence is present (Logic/Integration: test files pass; Visual/Feel/UI: sign-off docs in production/qa/evidence/)
• Smoke check passes cleanly (PASS verdict) on the release candidate build
• No test regressions from previous sprint (test suite passes fully)
• Balance data has been reviewed (/balance-check run)
• Release checklist completed (/release-checklist or /launch-checklist run)
• Store metadata prepared (if applicable)
• Changelog / patch notes drafted

Quality Checks:

• Full QA pass signed off by qa-lead
• All tests passing
• Performance targets met across all target platforms
• No known critical, high, or medium-severity bugs
• Accessibility basics covered (remapping, text scaling if applicable)
• Localization verified for all target languages
• Legal requirements met (EULA, privacy policy, age ratings if applicable)
• Build compiles and packages cleanly

---

3. Run the Gate Check

Before running artifact checks, read docs/consistency-failures.md if it exists. Extract entries whose Domain matches the target phase (e.g., if checking Systems Design → Technical Setup, pull entries in Economy, Combat, or any GDD domain; if checking Technical Setup → Pre-Production, pull entries in Architecture, Engine). Carry these as context — recurring conflict patterns in the target domain warrant increased scrutiny on those specific checks.

For each item in the target gate:

Artifact Checks

• Use Glob and Read to verify files exist and have meaningful content
• Don't just check existence — verify the file has real content (not just a template header)
• For code checks, verify directory structure and file counts

Systems Design → Technical Setup gate — cross-GDD review check: Use Glob('design/gdd/gdd-cross-review-*.md') to find the /review-all-gdds report. If no file matches, mark the "cross-GDD review report exists" artifact as FAIL and surface it prominently: "No /review-all-gdds report found in design/gdd/. Run /review-all-gdds before advancing to Technical Setup." If a file is found, read it and check the verdict line: a FAIL verdict means the cross-GDD consistency check failed and must be resolved before advancing.

Quality Checks

• For test checks: Run the test suite via Bash if a test runner is configured
• For design review checks: Read the GDD and check for the 8 required sections
• For performance checks: Read technical-preferences.md and compare against any profiling data in tests/performance/ or recent /perf-profile output
• For localization checks: Grep for hardcoded strings in src/

Cross-Reference Checks

• Compare design/gdd/ documents against src/ implementations
• Check that every system referenced in architecture docs has corresponding code
• Verify sprint plans reference real work items

---

4. Collaborative Assessment

For items that can't be automatically verified, ask the user:

• "I can't automatically verify that the core loop plays well. Has it been playtested?"
• "No playtest report found. Has informal testing been done?"
• "Performance profiling data isn't available. Would you like to run /perf-profile?"

Never assume PASS for unverifiable items. Mark them as MANUAL CHECK NEEDED.

---

4b. Director Panel Assessment

Skip for Workflow Selection gate: This gate is pre-workflow — no directors are assigned yet. Proceed directly to the verdict output with only the artifact and decision interview results.

For all other gates: Before generating the final verdict, spawn all four directors as parallel subagents via Task using the parallel gate protocol from docs/framework/director-gates.md. Issue all four Task calls simultaneously — do not wait for one before starting the next.

Spawn in parallel:

1. creative-director — gate CD-PHASE-GATE (docs/framework/director-gates.md)
2. technical-director — gate TD-PHASE-GATE (docs/framework/director-gates.md)
3. producer — gate PR-PHASE-GATE (docs/framework/director-gates.md)
4. art-director — gate AD-PHASE-GATE (docs/framework/director-gates.md)

Pass to each: target phase name, list of artifacts present, and the context fields listed in that gate's definition.

Collect all four responses, then present the Director Panel summary:

## Director Panel Assessment

Creative Director:  [READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY]
  [feedback]

Technical Director: [READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY]
  [feedback]

Producer:           [READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY]
  [feedback]

Art Director:       [READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY]
  [feedback]

Apply to the verdict:

• Any director returns NOT READY → verdict is minimum FAIL (user may override with explicit acknowledgement)
• Any director returns CONCERNS → verdict is minimum CONCERNS
• All four READY → eligible for PASS (still subject to artifact and quality checks from Section 3)

---

5. Output the Verdict

## Gate Check: [Current Phase] → [Target Phase]

**Date**: [date]
**Checked by**: gate-check skill

### Required Artifacts: [X/Y present]
- [x] design/gdd/game-concept.md — exists, 2.4KB
- [ ] docs/architecture/ — MISSING (no ADRs found)
- [x] production/sprints/ — exists, 1 sprint plan

### Quality Checks: [X/Y passing]
- [x] GDD has 8/8 required sections
- [ ] Tests — FAILED (3 failures in tests/unit/)
- [?] Core loop playtested — MANUAL CHECK NEEDED

### Blockers
1. **No Architecture Decision Records** — Run `/architecture-decision` to create one
   covering core system architecture before entering production.
2. **3 test failures** — Fix failing tests in tests/unit/ before advancing.

### Recommendations
- [Priority actions to resolve blockers]
- [Optional improvements that aren't blocking]

### Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL]
- **PASS**: All required artifacts present, all quality checks passing
- **CONCERNS**: Minor gaps exist but can be addressed during the next phase
- **FAIL**: Critical blockers must be resolved before advancing

---

5a. Chain-of-Verification

Skip for Workflow Selection gate: The decision interview is human-driven and scored transparently. No artifact quality checks need verification — the score and recommendation are self-evident. Proceed directly to the verdict.

For all other gates: After drafting the verdict in Phase 5, challenge it before finalising.

Step 1 — Generate 5 challenge questions designed to disprove the verdict:

For a PASS draft:

• "Which quality checks did I verify by actually reading a file, vs. inferring they passed?"
• "Are there MANUAL CHECK NEEDED items I marked PASS without user confirmation?"
• "Did I confirm all listed artifacts have real content, not just empty headers?"
• "Could any blocker I dismissed as minor actually prevent the phase from succeeding?"
• "Which single check am I least confident in, and why?"

For a CONCERNS draft:

• "Could any listed CONCERN be elevated to a blocker given the project's current state?"
• "Is the concern resolvable within the next phase, or does it compound over time?"
• "Did I soften any FAIL condition into a CONCERN to avoid a harder verdict?"
• "Are there artifacts I didn't check that could reveal additional blockers?"
• "Do all the CONCERNS together create a blocking problem even if each is minor alone?"

For a FAIL draft:

• "Have I accurately separated hard blockers from strong recommendations?"
• "Are there any PASS items I was too lenient about?"
• "Am I missing any additional blockers the user should know about?"
• "Can I provide a minimal path to PASS — the specific 3 things that must change?"
• "Is the fail condition resolvable, or does it indicate a deeper design problem?"

Step 2 — Answer each question independently. Do NOT reference the draft verdict text — re-check specific files or ask the user.

Step 3 — Revise if needed:

• If any answer reveals a missed blocker → upgrade verdict (PASS→CONCERNS or CONCERNS→FAIL)
• If any answer reveals an over-stated blocker → downgrade only if citing specific evidence
• If answers are consistent → confirm verdict unchanged

Step 4 — Note the verification in the final report output: Chain-of-Verification: [N] questions checked — verdict [unchanged | revised from X to Y]

---

6. Update Stage on PASS

When the verdict is PASS and the user confirms they want to advance:

• For Workflow Selection gate: Write TWO files. production/workflow-mode.txt with the selected workflow (hybrid or full), and production/stage.txt with Concept.

  echo -n "[hybrid|full]" > production/workflow-mode.txt
  echo -n "Concept" > production/stage.txt
  

• For all other gates: Write the new stage name to production/stage.txt (single line, no trailing newline).

Always ask before writing — specify both files for workflow-selection:

• "Gate passed. May I update production/stage.txt to 'Production'?"
• "Gate passed. May I set production/workflow-mode.txt to 'hybrid' and production/stage.txt to 'Concept'?"

---

7. Closing Next-Step Widget

After the verdict is presented and any stage.txt update is complete, close with a structured next-step prompt using question.

Tailor the options to the gate that just ran:

For workflow-selection PASS:

Gate passed. What would you like to do next?

[If hybrid] [A] Run /concept-brainstorm [winning-idea] — formalize your concept
             [B] Run /hybrid-prototype [winning-idea] — jump straight into prototyping
             [C] Stop here for this session
[If full]   [A] Run /concept-brainstorm [winning-idea] — formalize your concept
             [B] Run /setup-engine — choose and configure your engine
             [C] Stop here for this session

For systems-design PASS:

Gate passed. What would you like to do next?
[A] Run /create-architecture — produce your master architecture blueprint and ADR work plan (recommended next step)
[B] Design more GDDs first — return here when all MVP systems are complete
[C] Stop here for this session

Note for systems-design PASS: /create-architecture is the required next step before writing any ADRs. It produces the master architecture document and a prioritized list of ADRs to write. Running /architecture-decision without this step means writing ADRs without a blueprint — skip it at your own risk.

For technical-setup PASS:

Gate passed. What would you like to do next?
[A] Start Pre-Production — begin prototyping the Vertical Slice
[B] Write more ADRs first — run /architecture-decision [next-system]
[C] Stop here for this session

For all other gates, offer the two most logical next steps for that phase plus "Stop here".

---

8. Follow-Up Actions

Based on the verdict, suggest specific next steps:

• No explore prototypes yet? → /explore [idea-name] to prototype ideas before workflow selection
• Workflow not yet selected? → /gate-check workflow-selection to choose Hybrid or Full OCGS
• Selected Hybrid but no concept? → /concept-brainstorm [winning-idea] to formalize, then /hybrid-prototype to build
• Selected Full OCGS but no engine? → /setup-engine [engine-name] to configure the engine
• No art bible? → /art-bible to create the visual identity specification
• Art bible exists but no asset specs? → /asset-spec system:[name] to generate per-asset visual specs and generation prompts from approved GDDs
• No game concept? → /concept-brainstorm to create one
• No systems index? → /map-systems to decompose the concept into systems
• Missing design docs? → /reverse-document or delegate to game-designer
• Small design change needed? → /quick-design for changes under ~4 hours (bypasses full GDD pipeline)
• No UX specs? → /ux-design [screen name] to author specs, or /team-ui [feature] for full pipeline
• UX specs not reviewed? → /ux-review [file] or /ux-review all to validate
• No accessibility requirements doc? → Use question to offer to create it now:
  • Prompt: "The gate requires design/accessibility-requirements.md. Shall I create it from the template?"
  • Options: Create it now — I'll choose an accessibility tier, I'll create it myself, Skip for now
  • If "Create it now": use a second question to ask for the tier:
    • Prompt: "Which accessibility tier fits this project?"
    • Options: Basic — remapping + subtitles only (lowest effort), Standard — Basic + colorblind modes + scalable UI, Comprehensive — Standard + motor accessibility + full settings menu, Exemplary — Comprehensive + external audit + full customization
  • Then write design/accessibility-requirements.md using the template at docs/framework/templates/accessibility-requirements.md, filling in the chosen tier. Confirm: "May I write design/accessibility-requirements.md?"
• No interaction pattern library? → /ux-design patterns to initialize it
• GDDs not cross-reviewed? → /review-all-gdds (run after all MVP GDDs are individually approved)
• Cross-GDD consistency issues? → fix flagged GDDs, then re-run /review-all-gdds
• No test framework? → /test-setup to scaffold the framework for your engine
• No QA plan for current sprint? → /qa-plan sprint to generate one before implementation begins
• Missing ADRs? → /architecture-decision for individual decisions
• No master architecture doc? → /create-architecture for the full blueprint
• ADRs missing engine compatibility sections? → Re-run /architecture-decision or manually add Engine Compatibility sections to existing ADRs
• Missing control manifest? → /create-control-manifest (requires Accepted ADRs)
• Missing epics? → /create-epics layer: foundation then /create-epics layer: core (requires control manifest)
• Missing stories for an epic? → /create-stories [epic-slug] (run after each epic is created)
• Stories not implementation-ready? → /story-readiness to validate stories before developers pick them up
• Tests failing? → delegate to lead-programmer or qa-tester
• No playtest data? → /playtest-report
• Less than 3 playtest sessions? → Run more playtests before advancing. Use /playtest-report to structure findings.
• No Difficulty Curve doc? → Consider creating one at design/difficulty-curve.md before polish
• No player journey document? → create design/player-journey.md using the player journey template
• Need a quick sprint check? → /sprint-status for current sprint progress snapshot
• Performance unknown? → /perf-profile
• Not localized? → /localize
• Ready for release? → /launch-checklist

---

Collaborative Protocol

This skill follows the collaborative design principle:

1. Scan first: Check all artifacts and quality gates
2. Ask about unknowns: Don't assume PASS for things you can't verify
3. Present findings: Show the full checklist with status
4. User decides: The verdict is a recommendation — the user makes the final call
5. Get approval: "May I write this gate check report to production/gate-checks/?"

Never block a user from advancing — the verdict is advisory. Document the risks and let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns.