map-systems

!`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,workflow,docs.density,project.stage` Resolved above — use as-is; `--review` overrides `review_mode`. No block → defaults in `.claude/docs/config-resolution.md`. When this skill is invoked: ## Parse Arguments Two modes: - **No argument**: `/map-systems` — Run the full decomposition workflow (Phases 1-5) to create or update the systems index. - **`next`**: `/map-systems next` — Pick the highest-priority undesigned system from the index and hand off to `/design-system` (Phase 6). See `.claude/docs/director-gates.md` for the full check pattern. Individual gate definitions live in `.claude/docs/director-gates/[gate-id].md` — the spawned agent reads its own gate file; do not read it in the parent session. 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). In collaborative mode the system list, dependency, priority and write approvals are separate questions: each waits for its answer before the next step runs. **`docs.density`** — it controls per-section *depth*, where `workflow` controls which sections exist. `modes.rigor` sets both together; set `docs.density` explicitly to vary depth alone: `terse` (the default, via `rigor: minimal`) = one-line system descriptions; `balanced` = a brief paragraph per system + dependency notes (`rigor: standard`); `thorough` = full system-by-system rationale + relationship analysis. Apply it to every section you author. > **Where the per-system prose goes.** `templates/systems-index.md`'s Systems > Enumeration is a fixed-column table with no description column, so at > `balanced` and `thorough` the prose belongs in `## Overview` — one short > paragraph per system at `balanced`, plus relationship analysis at `thorough` — > and in the `## Dependency Map` layer notes. **Do not add a column to the > enumeration table** — it is a fixed contract in > `.claude/docs/templates/systems-index.md`, and its consumers > (`/design-system` §6 and §7, `/create-epics`) are written against the columns it > defines. Widening it is a schema change, not a formatting choice. > > **How the consumers actually read it.** Nothing parses this table > positionally. The two scripts that mention `systems-index.md` > (`gdd-structure-check.sh:51`, `review-scope.sh:40`) match it **by filename** in a > `case` statement and parse no columns at all; the two skills key on the > **`Category` column by name** (`design-system:229`, `:780`). So `Category` is > the column that must never be renamed or dropped, and the table stays a fixed > contract because every consumer is written against the set of columns the > template defines. > At `terse`, the table plus a one-paragraph `## Overview` is the whole output. **`workflow`** (see `.claude/docs/workflow-modes.md`): - `full` / `standard` — required before `/design-system` (systems must be mapped before per-system GDDs are authored). - `minimal` — not required (the game brief replaces the systems index). Can still be run voluntarily. --- ## Phase 1: Read Concept (Required Context) Read the game concept and any existing design work. This provides the raw material for systems decomposition. **Required:** - Read `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (at `minimal`, read `design/game-brief.md` instead) — **fail with a clear message if neither is found**: > "No game concept found. Run `/brainstorm` first to create one, then come back > to decompose it into systems." **Optional (read if they exist):** - Read `design/gdd/game-pillars.md` — pillars constrain priority and scope - Read `design/gdd/systems-index.md` — if exists, **resume** from where it left off (update, don't recreate from scratch) - Glob `design/gdd/*.md` — check which system GDDs already exist **If the systems index already exists:** - Read it and present current status to the user - Use `AskUserQuestion` to ask: "The systems index already exists with [N] systems ([M] designed, [K] not started). What would you like to do?" - Options: "Update the index with new systems", "Design the next undesigned system", "Review and revise priorities" --- ## Phase 2: Systems Enumeration (Collaborative) Extract and identify all systems the game needs. This is the creative core of the skill — it requires human judgment because concept docs rarely enumerate every system explicitly. ### Step 2a: Extract Explicit Systems Scan the game concept for directly mentioned systems and mechanics: - Core Mechanics section (most explicit) - Core Loop section (implies what systems drive each loop tier) - Technical Considerations section (networking, procedural generation, etc.) - MVP Definition section (required features = required systems) ### Step 2b: Identify Implicit Systems For each explicit system, identify the **hidden systems** it implies. Games always need more systems than the concept doc mentions. Use this inference pattern: - "Inventory" implies: item database, equipment slots, weight/capacity rules, inventory UI, item serialization for save/load - "Combat" implies: damage calculation, health system, hit detection, status effects, enemy AI, combat UI (health bars, damage numbers), death/respawn - "Open world" implies: streaming/chunking, LOD system, fast travel, map/minimap, point of interest tracking, world state persistence - "Multiplayer" implies: networking layer, lobby/matchmaking, state synchronization, anti-cheat, network UI (ping, player list) - "Crafting" implies: recipe database, ingredient gathering, crafting UI, success/failure mechanics, recipe discovery/learning - "Dialogue" implies: dialogue tree system, dialogue UI, choice tracking, NPC state management, localization hooks - "Progression" implies: XP system, level-up mechanics, skill tree, unlock tracking, progression UI, progression save data Explain in conversation text why each implicit system is needed (with examples). ### Step 2c: User Review Present the enumeration organized by category. For each system, show: - Name - Category - Brief description (1 sentence) - Whether it was explicit (from concept) or implicit (inferred) Then use `AskUserQuestion` to capture feedback: - "Are there systems missing from this list?" - "Should any of these be combined or split?" - "Are there systems listed that this game does NOT need?" **At `collaborative`** — iterate until the user approves the enumeration. **At `guided`** — ask once, apply the answer, and proceed; do not loop. **At `autonomous`** — do not ask. Record the enumeration and its inferred systems via `log_decision` and proceed. > **The loop needed an exit that does not depend on being asked.** > `automation-modes.md:56` defines `autonomous` as *"No `AskUserQuestion`"*, so a > loop terminating on "the user approves" has no termination path there at all. > Same class as Step 5b, one level up: that was an unconditional *write* gate, > this is an unconditional *control-flow loop* around the question. --- ## Phase 3: Dependency Mapping (Collaborative) For each system, determine what it depends on. A system "depends on" another if it cannot function without that other system existing first. ### Step 3a: Map Dependencies For each system, list its dependencies. Use these dependency heuristics: - **Input/output dependencies**: System A produces data System B needs - **Structural dependencies**: System A provides the framework System B plugs into - **UI dependencies**: Every gameplay system has a corresponding UI system that depends on it (but UI is designed after the gameplay system) ### Step 3b: Sort by Dependency Order Arrange systems into layers: 1. **Foundation**: Systems with zero dependencies (designed and built first) 2. **Core**: Systems depending only on Foundation systems 3. **Feature**: Systems depending on Core systems 4. **Presentation**: UI and feedback systems that wrap gameplay systems 5. **Polish**: Meta-systems, tutorials, analytics, accessibility ### Step 3c: Detect Circular Dependencies Check for cycles in the dependency graph. If found: - Highlight them to the user - Propose resolutions (interface abstraction, simultaneous design, breaking the cycle by defining a contract between the two systems) ### Step 3d: Present to User Show the dependency map as a layered list. Highlight: - Any circular dependencies - Any "bottleneck" systems (many others depend on them — these are high-risk) - Any systems with no dependents (leaf nodes — lower risk, can be designed late) Use `AskUserQuestion` to ask: "Does this dependency ordering look right? Any dependencies I'm missing or that should be removed?" **Review mode check** — apply before spawning TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY: - `solo` → skip. Note: "TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to priority assignment. - `lean` → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to priority assignment. - `full` → spawn as normal. **After dependency mapping is approved, spawn `technical-director` via `Agent` using gate TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY (`.claude/docs/director-gates/td-system-boundary.md`) before proceeding to priority assignment.** Pass: the dependency graph (each system → what it depends on), layer assignments, bottleneck systems, and any circular dependencies with their proposed resolutions. Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system boundaries with the user, show the revised dependency map, and only then move to priority assignment. If CONCERNS, note them inline in the systems index and continue. If NOT ASSESSED [missing input], it is not an APPROVE: name what was missing, then supply it and re-run the gate, or continue with `TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY: NOT ASSESSED — [input]` noted in the index draft. --- ## Phase 4: Priority Assignment (Collaborative) Assign each system to a priority tier based on what milestone it's needed for. ### Step 4a: Auto-Assign Based on Concept Use these heuristics for initial assignment: - **MVP**: Systems mentioned in the concept's "Required for MVP" section, plus their Foundation-layer dependencies - **Vertical Slice**: Systems needed for a complete experience in one area - **Alpha**: All remaining gameplay systems - **Full Vision**: Polish, meta, and nice-to-have systems ### Step 4b: User Review Present the priority assignments in a table. For each tier, explain why systems were placed there. Use `AskUserQuestion` to ask: "Do these priority assignments match your vision? Which systems should be higher or lower priority?" Explain reasoning in conversation: "I placed [system] in MVP because the core loop requires it — without [system], the 30-second loop can't function." **How to phrase the reasoning** — this governs what you *say*, not a column you write. Neither table has a `Why` column: Systems Enumeration is `# / Name / Category / Priority / Status / Design Doc / Depends On`, and Recommended Design Order is `Order / System / Priority / Layer / Agent(s) / Est. Effort`. The rationale lives in the conversation above and, for anything the user should still see after the session, in the index's `## Overview` paragraph. Do not invent a column for it. Mix technical necessity with player-experience reasoning. A purely technical justification — "the damage system needs damage math" — is insufficient on its own when the system directly shapes what the player feels. Good reasoning names both, and cites the pillar it serves: - "Required for the core loop — without it the player's main choice has no consequence (Pillar [N]: [pillar name])" - "This is where [system]'s identity is established — the stat definitions here are what make it feel different from [the sibling system]" - "Foundation for every later economy decision — the player must understand costs before any of the choices built on top of it mean anything" > **Fill the brackets from *this* project.** The bracketed slots are not > decoration. Worked examples from another genre (a tower-defense "Ballista's > punch-through identity… what makes it feel different from Archer", "Pillar 2: > Placement is the Puzzle") get reproduced verbatim by a run against a different > game, which then carries that game's vocabulary instead of its own. **Review mode check** — apply before spawning PR-SCOPE: - `solo` → skip. Note: "PR-SCOPE skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Step 4c. - `lean` → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-SCOPE skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Step 4c. - `full` → spawn as normal. **After priorities are approved, spawn `producer` via `Agent` using gate PR-SCOPE (`.claude/docs/director-gates/pr-scope.md`) before writing the index.** Pass the gate's fields from the index: the full vision scope (every system in the index), the MVP definition (the MVP tier's systems), the scope tiers (system count per milestone tier, with estimated implementation volume — system count × average complexity), the stated project timeline as the timeline estimate, and team size. Present the assessment. PR-SCOPE answers REALISTIC / OPTIMISTIC / UNREALISTIC. If UNREALISTIC, offer to revise priority tier assignments before writing the index. If OPTIMISTIC, show the producer's suggested adjustments and ask whether to apply them to the tiers before writing; if the user declines, note them and continue. If NOT ASSESSED [missing input] — often the team size or timeline — it is not a REALISTIC: name what was missing, then supply it and re-run the gate, or continue with `PR-SCOPE: NOT ASSESSED — [input]` noted in the index draft. ### Step 4c: Determine Design Order Combine dependency sort + priority tier to produce the final design order: 1. MVP Foundation systems first 2. MVP Core systems second 3. MVP Feature systems third 4. Vertical Slice Foundation/Core systems 5. ...and so on This is the order the team should write GDDs in. --- ## Phase 5: Create Systems Index (Write) ### Step 5a: Draft the Document Using the template at `.claude/docs/templates/systems-index.md`, populate the systems index with all data from Phases 2-4: - Fill the enumeration table - Fill the dependency map - Fill the recommended design order - Fill the high-risk systems - Fill progress tracker (all systems "Not Started" initially, unless GDDs already exist) ### Step 5b: Approval Present a summary of the document: - Total systems count by category - MVP system count - First 3 systems in the design order - Any high-risk items **At `automation: collaborative`** — ask: "May I write the systems index to `design/gdd/systems-index.md`?" Wait for approval. Write the file only after "yes." **At `automation: guided`** — a **new** index gets the same "May I write …?" question, because `.claude/docs/automation-modes.md` has `guided` ask "May I write?" for new files. When the index already exists, present the summary above, name the destination (`design/gdd/systems-index.md`), and write the update without waiting for an explicit "yes". Say what you wrote afterwards. > **Keep this line scoped to its mode.** `automation-modes.md` says `guided` > *"proceeds after a short summary, does not wait for explicit yes"* and asks > "May I write?" *"for new files only"*, and this skill's own Collaborative > Protocol section is scoped to `collaborative`. An unconditional "wait for > approval" here collides with both. **Review mode check** — apply before spawning CD-SYSTEMS: - `solo` → skip. Note: "CD-SYSTEMS skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Step 5c. - `lean` → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "CD-SYSTEMS skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Step 5c. - `full` → spawn as normal. **After the systems index is written, spawn `creative-director` via `Agent` using gate CD-SYSTEMS (`.claude/docs/director-gates/cd-systems.md`).** Pass: systems index path; game pillars and core fantasy — from `design/gdd/game-concept.md`, or at `minimal` the pitch and "what they feel" line of `design/game-brief.md`, which has no pillars; the priority tier assignments for every tier (MVP / Vertical Slice / Alpha / Full Vision); and the high-risk and bottleneck systems from the dependency map. Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system set with the user before GDD authoring begins. If CONCERNS, show them and use `AskUserQuestion`: `Revise the system set` / `Accept — record them in the index` / `Discuss further`. On *Revise*, rework the affected systems with the user and ask again before re-writing the index. On *Accept* — the option names the edit, so choosing it is the ask — record them in the systems index as a `> **Creative Director Note**` placed **directly beneath the `## Priority Tiers` table**, naming the tier each concern applies to — e.g. `> **Creative Director Note** (MVP): …`. `templates/systems-index.md` has a Priority Tiers *definition table*, not a section per tier, so there is no "top of the tier section" to write to — do not direct the writer to one. If NOT ASSESSED [missing input], it is not an APPROVE (`.claude/docs/director-gates.md`): name what was missing, then supply it and re-run the gate, or ask before recording `> **Creative Director Note**: CD-SYSTEMS NOT ASSESSED — [input]` in the same place. ### Step 5c: Update Session State After writing, create `production/session-state/active.md` if it does not exist, then update it with: - Task: Systems decomposition - Status: Systems index created - File: design/gdd/systems-index.md - Next: Design individual system GDDs **Verdict: COMPLETE** — systems index written to `design/gdd/systems-index.md`. If the user declined: **Verdict: BLOCKED** — user did not approve the write. --- ## Phase 6: Design Individual Systems (Handoff to /design-system) This phase is entered when: - The user says "yes" to designing systems after creating the index - The user invokes `/map-systems [system-name]` - The user invokes `/map-systems next` ### Step 6a: Select the System - If a system name was provided, find it in the systems index - If `next` was used, pick the highest-priority undesigned system (by design order) - If the user just finished the index, ask: "Would you like to start designing individual systems now? The first system in the design order is [name]. Or would you prefer to stop here and come back later?" Use `AskUserQuestion` for: "Start designing [system-name] now, pick a different system, or stop here?" ### Step 6b: Hand Off to /design-system Once a system is selected, invoke the `/design-system [system-name]` skill.