Godot Game Dev expansion pack for BMAD (#532)
* Godot Game Dev expansion pack for BMAD * Workflow changes * Workflow changes * Fixing config.yaml, editing README.md to indicate correct workflow * Fixing references to config.yaml, adding missing QA review to game-dev agent * More game story creation fixes * More game story creation fixes * Adding built web agent file * - Adding ability for QA agent to have preloaded context files similar to Dev agent. - Fixing stray Unity references in game-architecture-tmpl.yaml --------- Co-authored-by: Brian <bmadcode@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
sjennings
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
|
||||
# Advanced Game Design Elicitation Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
- Provide optional reflective and brainstorming actions to enhance game design content quality
|
||||
- Enable deeper exploration of game mechanics and player experience through structured elicitation techniques
|
||||
- Support iterative refinement through multiple game development perspectives
|
||||
- Apply game-specific critical thinking to design decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Task Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Game Design Context and Review
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: When invoked after outputting a game design section:
|
||||
|
||||
1. First, provide a brief 1-2 sentence summary of what the user should look for in the section just presented, with game-specific focus (e.g., "Please review the core mechanics for player engagement and implementation feasibility. Pay special attention to how these mechanics create the intended player experience and whether they're technically achievable with Unity.")
|
||||
|
||||
2. If the section contains game flow diagrams, level layouts, or system diagrams, explain each diagram briefly with game development context before offering elicitation options (e.g., "The gameplay loop diagram shows how player actions lead to rewards and progression. Notice how each step maintains player engagement and creates opportunities for skill development.")
|
||||
|
||||
3. If the section contains multiple game elements (like multiple mechanics, multiple levels, multiple systems, etc.), inform the user they can apply elicitation actions to:
|
||||
- The entire section as a whole
|
||||
- Individual game elements within the section (specify which element when selecting an action)
|
||||
|
||||
4. Then present the action list as specified below.]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Ask for Review and Present Game Design Action List
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: Ask the user to review the drafted game design section. In the SAME message, inform them that they can suggest additions, removals, or modifications, OR they can select an action by number from the 'Advanced Game Design Elicitation & Brainstorming Actions'. If there are multiple game elements in the section, mention they can specify which element(s) to apply the action to. Then, present ONLY the numbered list (0-9) of these actions. Conclude by stating that selecting 9 will proceed to the next section. Await user selection. If an elicitation action (0-8) is chosen, execute it and then re-offer this combined review/elicitation choice. If option 9 is chosen, or if the user provides direct feedback, proceed accordingly.]]
|
||||
|
||||
**Present the numbered list (0-9) with this exact format:**
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
**Advanced Game Design Elicitation & Brainstorming Actions**
|
||||
Choose an action (0-9 - 9 to bypass - HELP for explanation of these options):
|
||||
|
||||
0. Expand or Contract for Target Audience
|
||||
1. Explain Game Design Reasoning (Step-by-Step)
|
||||
2. Critique and Refine from Player Perspective
|
||||
3. Analyze Game Flow and Mechanic Dependencies
|
||||
4. Assess Alignment with Player Experience Goals
|
||||
5. Identify Potential Player Confusion and Design Risks
|
||||
6. Challenge from Critical Game Design Perspective
|
||||
7. Explore Alternative Game Design Approaches
|
||||
8. Hindsight Postmortem: The 'If Only...' Game Design Reflection
|
||||
9. Proceed / No Further Actions
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Processing Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
**Do NOT show:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The full protocol text with `[[LLM: ...]]` instructions
|
||||
- Detailed explanations of each option unless executing or the user asks, when giving the definition you can modify to tie its game development relevance
|
||||
- Any internal template markup
|
||||
|
||||
**After user selection from the list:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Execute the chosen action according to the game design protocol instructions below
|
||||
- Ask if they want to select another action or proceed with option 9 once complete
|
||||
- Continue until user selects option 9 or indicates completion
|
||||
|
||||
## Game Design Action Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
0. Expand or Contract for Target Audience
|
||||
[[LLM: Ask the user whether they want to 'expand' on the game design content (add more detail, elaborate on mechanics, include more examples) or 'contract' it (simplify mechanics, focus on core features, reduce complexity). Also, ask if there's a specific player demographic or experience level they have in mind (casual players, hardcore gamers, children, etc.). Once clarified, perform the expansion or contraction from your current game design role's perspective, tailored to the specified player audience if provided.]]
|
||||
|
||||
1. Explain Game Design Reasoning (Step-by-Step)
|
||||
[[LLM: Explain the step-by-step game design thinking process that you used to arrive at the current proposal for this game content. Focus on player psychology, engagement mechanics, technical feasibility, and how design decisions support the overall player experience goals.]]
|
||||
|
||||
2. Critique and Refine from Player Perspective
|
||||
[[LLM: From your current game design role's perspective, review your last output or the current section for potential player confusion, engagement issues, balance problems, or areas for improvement. Consider how players will actually interact with and experience these systems, then suggest a refined version that better serves player enjoyment and understanding.]]
|
||||
|
||||
3. Analyze Game Flow and Mechanic Dependencies
|
||||
[[LLM: From your game design role's standpoint, examine the content's structure for logical gameplay progression, mechanic interdependencies, and player learning curve. Confirm if game elements are introduced in an effective order that teaches players naturally and maintains engagement throughout the experience.]]
|
||||
|
||||
4. Assess Alignment with Player Experience Goals
|
||||
[[LLM: Evaluate how well the current game design content contributes to the stated player experience goals and core game pillars. Consider whether the mechanics actually create the intended emotions and engagement patterns. Identify any misalignments between design intentions and likely player reactions.]]
|
||||
|
||||
5. Identify Potential Player Confusion and Design Risks
|
||||
[[LLM: Based on your game design expertise, brainstorm potential sources of player confusion, overlooked edge cases in gameplay, balance issues, technical implementation risks, or unintended player behaviors that could emerge from the current design. Consider both new and experienced players' perspectives.]]
|
||||
|
||||
6. Challenge from Critical Game Design Perspective
|
||||
[[LLM: Adopt a critical game design perspective on the current content. If the user specifies another viewpoint (e.g., 'as a casual player', 'as a speedrunner', 'as a mobile player', 'as a technical implementer'), critique the content from that specified perspective. If no other role is specified, play devil's advocate from your game design expertise, arguing against the current design proposal and highlighting potential weaknesses, player experience issues, or implementation challenges. This can include questioning scope creep, unnecessary complexity, or features that don't serve the core player experience.]]
|
||||
|
||||
7. Explore Alternative Game Design Approaches
|
||||
[[LLM: From your game design role's perspective, first broadly brainstorm a range of diverse approaches to achieving the same player experience goals or solving the same design challenge. Consider different genres, mechanics, interaction models, or technical approaches. Then, from this wider exploration, select and present 2-3 distinct alternative design approaches, detailing the pros, cons, player experience implications, and technical feasibility you foresee for each.]]
|
||||
|
||||
8. Hindsight Postmortem: The 'If Only...' Game Design Reflection
|
||||
[[LLM: In your current game design persona, imagine this is a postmortem for a shipped game based on the current design content. What's the one 'if only we had designed/considered/tested X...' that your role would highlight from a game design perspective? Include the imagined player reactions, review scores, or development consequences. This should be both insightful and somewhat humorous, focusing on common game design pitfalls.]]
|
||||
|
||||
9. Proceed / No Further Actions
|
||||
[[LLM: Acknowledge the user's choice to finalize the current game design work, accept the AI's last output as is, or move on to the next step without selecting another action from this list. Prepare to proceed accordingly.]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Game Development Context Integration
|
||||
|
||||
This elicitation task is specifically designed for game development and should be used in contexts where:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Game Mechanics Design**: When defining core gameplay systems and player interactions
|
||||
- **Player Experience Planning**: When designing for specific emotional responses and engagement patterns
|
||||
- **Technical Game Architecture**: When balancing design ambitions with implementation realities
|
||||
- **Game Balance and Progression**: When designing difficulty curves and player advancement systems
|
||||
- **Platform Considerations**: When adapting designs for different devices and input methods
|
||||
|
||||
The questions and perspectives offered should always consider:
|
||||
|
||||
- Player psychology and motivation
|
||||
- Technical feasibility with Godot
|
||||
- Performance implications for stable frame rate targets
|
||||
- Cross-platform compatibility (PC, console, mobile)
|
||||
- Game development best practices and common pitfalls
|
||||
224
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/apply-qa-fixes.md
Normal file
224
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/apply-qa-fixes.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# apply-qa-fixes
|
||||
|
||||
Implement fixes based on QA results (gate and assessments) for a specific Godot game story. This task is for the Game Developer agent to systematically consume QA outputs and apply game code/test changes while only updating allowed sections in the story file.
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
- Read QA outputs for a game story (gate YAML + assessment markdowns)
|
||||
- Create a prioritized, deterministic fix plan for game features
|
||||
- Apply game code and test changes to close gaps and address issues
|
||||
- Update only the allowed story sections for the Game Developer agent
|
||||
|
||||
## Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
required:
|
||||
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "2.2"
|
||||
- qa_root: from `.bmad-godot-game-dev/config.yaml` key `qa.qaLocation` (e.g., `docs/project/qa`)
|
||||
- story_root: from `.bmad-godot-game-dev/config.yaml` key `devStoryLocation` (e.g., `docs/project/stories`)
|
||||
- project_root: Godot project root directory (containing project.godot)
|
||||
|
||||
optional:
|
||||
- story_title: '{title}' # derive from story H1 if missing
|
||||
- story_slug: '{slug}' # derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated) if missing
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## QA Sources to Read
|
||||
|
||||
- Gate (YAML): `{qa_root}/gates/{epic}.{story}-*.yml`
|
||||
- If multiple, use the most recent by modified time
|
||||
- Assessments (Markdown):
|
||||
- Test Design: `{qa_root}/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-*.md`
|
||||
- Traceability: `{qa_root}/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-*.md`
|
||||
- Risk Profile: `{qa_root}/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-*.md`
|
||||
- NFR Assessment: `{qa_root}/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-*.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
- Godot 4.x installed and configured
|
||||
- Testing frameworks installed:
|
||||
- **GDScript**: GUT (Godot Unit Test) framework installed as addon
|
||||
- **C#**: GoDotTest or GodotTestDriver NuGet packages installed
|
||||
- Project builds successfully in Godot Editor
|
||||
- Test commands available:
|
||||
- GDScript: `godot --headless --script res://addons/gut/gut_cmdln.gd`
|
||||
- C#: `dotnet test` or `godot --headless --run-tests`
|
||||
|
||||
## Process (Do not skip steps)
|
||||
|
||||
### 0) Load Core Config & Locate Story
|
||||
|
||||
- Read `bmad-core/core-config.yaml` and resolve `qa_root`, `story_root`, and `project_root`
|
||||
- Locate story file in `{story_root}/{epic}.{story}.*.md`
|
||||
- HALT if missing and ask for correct story id/path
|
||||
|
||||
### 1) Collect QA Findings
|
||||
|
||||
- Parse the latest gate YAML:
|
||||
- `gate` (PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED)
|
||||
- `top_issues[]` with `id`, `severity`, `finding`, `suggested_action`
|
||||
- `nfr_validation.*.status` and notes
|
||||
- `trace` coverage summary/gaps
|
||||
- `test_design.coverage_gaps[]`
|
||||
- `risk_summary.recommendations.must_fix[]` (if present)
|
||||
- Read any present assessment markdowns and extract explicit gaps/recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
### 2) Build Deterministic Fix Plan (Priority Order)
|
||||
|
||||
Apply in order, highest priority first:
|
||||
|
||||
1. High severity items in `top_issues` (gameplay/performance/stability/maintainability)
|
||||
2. NFR statuses: all FAIL must be fixed → then CONCERNS
|
||||
3. Test Design `coverage_gaps` (prioritize P0 gameplay scenarios)
|
||||
4. Trace uncovered requirements (AC-level, especially gameplay mechanics)
|
||||
5. Risk `must_fix` recommendations
|
||||
6. Medium severity issues, then low
|
||||
|
||||
Guidance:
|
||||
|
||||
- Prefer tests closing coverage gaps before/with code changes
|
||||
- Keep changes minimal and targeted; follow Godot best practices and project architecture
|
||||
- Respect scene organization and node hierarchy
|
||||
- Follow GDScript style guide or C# conventions as appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
### 3) Apply Changes
|
||||
|
||||
- Implement game code fixes per plan:
|
||||
- GDScript: Follow Godot style guide, use signals for decoupling
|
||||
- C#: Follow .NET conventions, use events/delegates appropriately
|
||||
- Add missing tests to close coverage gaps:
|
||||
- **GDScript Tests (GUT)**:
|
||||
- Unit tests in `test/unit/` for game logic
|
||||
- Integration tests in `test/integration/` for scene interactions
|
||||
- Use `gut.p()` for parameterized tests
|
||||
- Mock nodes with `double()` and `stub()`
|
||||
- **C# Tests (GoDotTest/GodotTestDriver)**:
|
||||
- Unit tests using xUnit or NUnit patterns
|
||||
- Integration tests for scene and node interactions
|
||||
- Use test fixtures for game state setup
|
||||
- Follow Godot patterns:
|
||||
- Autoload/singleton patterns for global game state
|
||||
- Signal-based communication between nodes
|
||||
- Resource files (.tres/.res) for data management
|
||||
- Scene inheritance for reusable components
|
||||
|
||||
### 4) Validate
|
||||
|
||||
**For GDScript Projects:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Run GUT tests: `godot --headless --script res://addons/gut/gut_cmdln.gd -gselect=test/ -gexit`
|
||||
- Check for script errors in Godot Editor (Script Editor panel)
|
||||
- Validate scene references and node paths
|
||||
- Run game in editor to verify no runtime errors
|
||||
|
||||
**For C# Projects:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Build solution: `dotnet build`
|
||||
- Run tests: `dotnet test` or `godot --headless --run-tests`
|
||||
- Check for compilation errors
|
||||
- Validate no null reference exceptions in gameplay
|
||||
|
||||
**For Both:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Test gameplay mechanics manually if needed
|
||||
- Verify performance (check FPS, memory usage)
|
||||
- Iterate until all tests pass and no errors
|
||||
|
||||
### 5) Update Story (Allowed Sections ONLY)
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: Dev agent is ONLY authorized to update these sections of the story file. Do not modify any other sections (e.g., QA Results, Story, Acceptance Criteria, Dev Notes, Testing):
|
||||
|
||||
- Tasks / Subtasks Checkboxes (mark any fix subtask you added as done)
|
||||
- Dev Agent Record →
|
||||
- Agent Model Used (if changed)
|
||||
- Debug Log References (test results, Godot console output)
|
||||
- Completion Notes List (what changed, why, how)
|
||||
- File List (all added/modified/deleted files)
|
||||
- Change Log (new dated entry describing applied fixes)
|
||||
- Status (see Rule below)
|
||||
|
||||
Status Rule:
|
||||
|
||||
- If gate was PASS and all identified gaps are closed → set `Status: Ready for Done`
|
||||
- Otherwise → set `Status: Ready for Review` and notify QA to re-run the review
|
||||
|
||||
### 6) Do NOT Edit Gate Files
|
||||
|
||||
- Dev does not modify gate YAML. If fixes address issues, request QA to re-run `review-story` to update the gate
|
||||
|
||||
## Blocking Conditions
|
||||
|
||||
- Missing `bmad-core/core-config.yaml`
|
||||
- Story file not found for `story_id`
|
||||
- No QA artifacts found (neither gate nor assessments)
|
||||
- HALT and request QA to generate at least a gate file (or proceed only with clear developer-provided fix list)
|
||||
- Godot project file (`project.godot`) not found
|
||||
- Testing framework not properly installed (GUT addon missing or NuGet packages not restored)
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
- Godot project builds without errors
|
||||
- All tests pass:
|
||||
- GDScript: GUT tests green
|
||||
- C#: dotnet test successful
|
||||
- No script errors in Godot Editor
|
||||
- All high severity `top_issues` addressed
|
||||
- NFR FAIL → resolved; CONCERNS minimized or documented
|
||||
- Coverage gaps closed or explicitly documented with rationale
|
||||
- Gameplay features tested and working
|
||||
- Story updated (allowed sections only) including File List and Change Log
|
||||
- Status set according to Status Rule
|
||||
|
||||
## Example: Story 2.2 - Player Movement System
|
||||
|
||||
Given gate `docs/project/qa/gates/2.2-*.yml` shows
|
||||
|
||||
- `coverage_gaps`: Jump mechanics edge cases untested (AC2)
|
||||
- `coverage_gaps`: Input buffering not tested (AC4)
|
||||
- `top_issues`: Performance drops when multiple players active
|
||||
|
||||
Fix plan:
|
||||
|
||||
**GDScript Example:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Add GUT test for jump height variation based on button hold time
|
||||
- Add test for input buffering during state transitions
|
||||
- Optimize player movement script using object pooling for effects
|
||||
- Test with `gut.p()` parameterized tests for different player counts
|
||||
|
||||
**C# Example:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Add GoDotTest unit test for jump physics calculations
|
||||
- Add integration test for input system using GodotTestDriver
|
||||
- Refactor movement system to use Jobs/Tasks for parallel processing
|
||||
- Verify with performance profiler
|
||||
|
||||
- Re-run tests and update Dev Agent Record + File List accordingly
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- Deterministic, risk-first prioritization
|
||||
- Minimal, maintainable changes following Godot best practices
|
||||
- Tests validate gameplay behavior and close gapså
|
||||
- Respect Godot's node-based architecture and signal system
|
||||
- Maintain clear separation between game logic and presentation
|
||||
- Strict adherence to allowed story update areas
|
||||
- Gate ownership remains with QA; Game Developer signals readiness via Status
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing Framework References
|
||||
|
||||
### GUT (GDScript)
|
||||
|
||||
- Documentation: https://github.com/bitwes/Gut/wiki
|
||||
- Test structure: `extends GutTest`
|
||||
- Assertions: `assert_eq()`, `assert_true()`, `assert_has_signal()`
|
||||
- Mocking: `double()`, `stub()`, `spy_on()`
|
||||
|
||||
### GoDotTest/GodotTestDriver (C#)
|
||||
|
||||
- GoDotTest: xUnit-style testing for Godot C#
|
||||
- GodotTestDriver: Integration testing with scene manipulation
|
||||
- Test attributes: `[Fact]`, `[Theory]`, `[InlineData]`
|
||||
- Scene testing: Load scenes, interact with nodes, verify state
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# Create Brownfield Epic Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Create a single epic for smaller brownfield enhancements that don't require the full PRD and Architecture documentation process. This task is for isolated features or modifications that can be completed within a focused scope.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use This Task
|
||||
|
||||
**Use this task when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement can be completed in 1-3 stories
|
||||
- No significant architectural changes are required
|
||||
- The enhancement follows existing project patterns
|
||||
- Integration complexity is minimal
|
||||
- Risk to existing system is low
|
||||
|
||||
**Use the full brownfield PRD/Architecture process when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement requires multiple coordinated stories
|
||||
- Architectural planning is needed
|
||||
- Significant integration work is required
|
||||
- Risk assessment and mitigation planning is necessary
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Project Analysis (Required)
|
||||
|
||||
Before creating the epic, gather essential information about the existing project:
|
||||
|
||||
**Existing Project Context:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Project purpose and current functionality understood
|
||||
- [ ] Existing technology stack identified
|
||||
- [ ] Current architecture patterns noted
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points with existing system identified
|
||||
|
||||
**Enhancement Scope:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Enhancement clearly defined and scoped
|
||||
- [ ] Impact on existing functionality assessed
|
||||
- [ ] Required integration points identified
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria established
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Epic Creation
|
||||
|
||||
Create a focused epic following this structure:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Epic Title
|
||||
|
||||
{{Enhancement Name}} - Brownfield Enhancement
|
||||
|
||||
#### Epic Goal
|
||||
|
||||
{{1-2 sentences describing what the epic will accomplish and why it adds value}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Epic Description
|
||||
|
||||
**Existing System Context:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Current relevant functionality: {{brief description}}
|
||||
- Technology stack: {{relevant existing technologies}}
|
||||
- Integration points: {{where new work connects to existing system}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Enhancement Details:**
|
||||
|
||||
- What's being added/changed: {{clear description}}
|
||||
- How it integrates: {{integration approach}}
|
||||
- Success criteria: {{measurable outcomes}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Stories
|
||||
|
||||
List 1-3 focused stories that complete the epic:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Story 1:** {{Story title and brief description}}
|
||||
2. **Story 2:** {{Story title and brief description}}
|
||||
3. **Story 3:** {{Story title and brief description}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Compatibility Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Existing APIs remain unchanged
|
||||
- [ ] Database schema changes are backward compatible
|
||||
- [ ] UI changes follow existing patterns
|
||||
- [ ] Performance impact is minimal
|
||||
|
||||
#### Risk Mitigation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Primary Risk:** {{main risk to existing system}}
|
||||
- **Mitigation:** {{how risk will be addressed}}
|
||||
- **Rollback Plan:** {{how to undo changes if needed}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Definition of Done
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All stories completed with acceptance criteria met
|
||||
- [ ] Existing functionality verified through testing
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points working correctly
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation updated appropriately
|
||||
- [ ] No regression in existing features
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing the epic, ensure:
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope Validation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Epic can be completed in 1-3 stories maximum
|
||||
- [ ] No architectural documentation is required
|
||||
- [ ] Enhancement follows existing patterns
|
||||
- [ ] Integration complexity is manageable
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Assessment:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Risk to existing system is low
|
||||
- [ ] Rollback plan is feasible
|
||||
- [ ] Testing approach covers existing functionality
|
||||
- [ ] Team has sufficient knowledge of integration points
|
||||
|
||||
**Completeness Check:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Epic goal is clear and achievable
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are properly scoped
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria are measurable
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies are identified
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Handoff to Story Manager
|
||||
|
||||
Once the epic is validated, provide this handoff to the Story Manager:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Manager Handoff:**
|
||||
|
||||
"Please develop detailed user stories for this brownfield epic. Key considerations:
|
||||
|
||||
- This is an enhancement to an existing system running {{technology stack}}
|
||||
- Integration points: {{list key integration points}}
|
||||
- Existing patterns to follow: {{relevant existing patterns}}
|
||||
- Critical compatibility requirements: {{key requirements}}
|
||||
- Each story must include verification that existing functionality remains intact
|
||||
|
||||
The epic should maintain system integrity while delivering {{epic goal}}."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
The epic creation is successful when:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Enhancement scope is clearly defined and appropriately sized
|
||||
2. Integration approach respects existing system architecture
|
||||
3. Risk to existing functionality is minimized
|
||||
4. Stories are logically sequenced for safe implementation
|
||||
5. Compatibility requirements are clearly specified
|
||||
6. Rollback plan is feasible and documented
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- This task is specifically for SMALL brownfield enhancements
|
||||
- If the scope grows beyond 3 stories, consider the full brownfield PRD process
|
||||
- Always prioritize existing system integrity over new functionality
|
||||
- When in doubt about scope or complexity, escalate to full brownfield planning
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# Create Brownfield Story Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Create a single user story for very small brownfield enhancements that can be completed in one focused development session. This task is for minimal additions or bug fixes that require existing system integration awareness.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use This Task
|
||||
|
||||
**Use this task when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement can be completed in a single story
|
||||
- No new architecture or significant design is required
|
||||
- The change follows existing patterns exactly
|
||||
- Integration is straightforward with minimal risk
|
||||
- Change is isolated with clear boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
**Use brownfield-create-epic when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement requires 2-3 coordinated stories
|
||||
- Some design work is needed
|
||||
- Multiple integration points are involved
|
||||
|
||||
**Use the full brownfield PRD/Architecture process when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement requires multiple coordinated stories
|
||||
- Architectural planning is needed
|
||||
- Significant integration work is required
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Quick Project Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
Gather minimal but essential context about the existing project:
|
||||
|
||||
**Current System Context:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Relevant existing functionality identified
|
||||
- [ ] Technology stack for this area noted
|
||||
- [ ] Integration point(s) clearly understood
|
||||
- [ ] Existing patterns for similar work identified
|
||||
|
||||
**Change Scope:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Specific change clearly defined
|
||||
- [ ] Impact boundaries identified
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria established
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Story Creation
|
||||
|
||||
Create a single focused story following this structure:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Story Title
|
||||
|
||||
{{Specific Enhancement}} - Brownfield Addition
|
||||
|
||||
#### User Story
|
||||
|
||||
As a {{user type}},
|
||||
I want {{specific action/capability}},
|
||||
So that {{clear benefit/value}}.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Story Context
|
||||
|
||||
**Existing System Integration:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Integrates with: {{existing component/system}}
|
||||
- Technology: {{relevant tech stack}}
|
||||
- Follows pattern: {{existing pattern to follow}}
|
||||
- Touch points: {{specific integration points}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Functional Requirements:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. {{Primary functional requirement}}
|
||||
2. {{Secondary functional requirement (if any)}}
|
||||
3. {{Integration requirement}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration Requirements:** 4. Existing {{relevant functionality}} continues to work unchanged 5. New functionality follows existing {{pattern}} pattern 6. Integration with {{system/component}} maintains current behavior
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Requirements:** 7. Change is covered by appropriate tests 8. Documentation is updated if needed 9. No regression in existing functionality verified
|
||||
|
||||
#### Technical Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- **Integration Approach:** {{how it connects to existing system}}
|
||||
- **Existing Pattern Reference:** {{link or description of pattern to follow}}
|
||||
- **Key Constraints:** {{any important limitations or requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Definition of Done
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Functional requirements met
|
||||
- [ ] Integration requirements verified
|
||||
- [ ] Existing functionality regression tested
|
||||
- [ ] Code follows existing patterns and standards
|
||||
- [ ] Tests pass (existing and new)
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation updated if applicable
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Risk and Compatibility Check
|
||||
|
||||
**Minimal Risk Assessment:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Primary Risk:** {{main risk to existing system}}
|
||||
- **Mitigation:** {{simple mitigation approach}}
|
||||
- **Rollback:** {{how to undo if needed}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Compatibility Verification:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No breaking changes to existing APIs
|
||||
- [ ] Database changes (if any) are additive only
|
||||
- [ ] UI changes follow existing design patterns
|
||||
- [ ] Performance impact is negligible
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing the story, confirm:
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope Validation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Story can be completed in one development session
|
||||
- [ ] Integration approach is straightforward
|
||||
- [ ] Follows existing patterns exactly
|
||||
- [ ] No design or architecture work required
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity Check:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Story requirements are unambiguous
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points are clearly specified
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria are testable
|
||||
- [ ] Rollback approach is simple
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
The story creation is successful when:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Enhancement is clearly defined and appropriately scoped for single session
|
||||
2. Integration approach is straightforward and low-risk
|
||||
3. Existing system patterns are identified and will be followed
|
||||
4. Rollback plan is simple and feasible
|
||||
5. Acceptance criteria include existing functionality verification
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- This task is for VERY SMALL brownfield changes only
|
||||
- If complexity grows during analysis, escalate to brownfield-create-epic
|
||||
- Always prioritize existing system integrity
|
||||
- When in doubt about integration complexity, use brownfield-create-epic instead
|
||||
- Stories should take no more than 4 hours of focused development work
|
||||
159
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/correct-course-game.md
Normal file
159
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/correct-course-game.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
|
||||
# Correct Course Task - Godot Game Development
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
- Guide a structured response to Godot game development change triggers using the `.bmad-godot-game-dev/checklists/game-change-checklist`.
|
||||
- Analyze the impacts of changes on game features, node systems, and performance targets (60+ FPS).
|
||||
- Explore Godot-specific solutions (e.g., GDScript vs C# optimization, scene restructuring, platform export adjustments).
|
||||
- Draft specific, actionable proposed updates to affected game artifacts (e.g., GDD sections, technical specs, Godot project settings).
|
||||
- Produce a consolidated "Godot Game Development Change Proposal" document for review and approval.
|
||||
- Ensure clear handoff path for changes requiring fundamental redesign, language migration, or architecture updates.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Initial Setup & Mode Selection
|
||||
|
||||
- **Acknowledge Task & Inputs:**
|
||||
- Confirm with the user that the "Godot Game Development Correct Course Task" is being initiated.
|
||||
- Verify the change trigger (e.g., 60+ FPS performance issue, GDScript/C# migration need, node system refactor, platform export problem).
|
||||
- Confirm access to relevant game artifacts:
|
||||
- Game Design Document (GDD)
|
||||
- Technical Design Documents
|
||||
- Godot Architecture specifications (node hierarchy, signal flow)
|
||||
- Performance budgets (60+ FPS minimum) and platform requirements
|
||||
- Current sprint's game stories with TDD test coverage
|
||||
- Asset import settings and resource management
|
||||
- Language strategy documentation (GDScript vs C#)
|
||||
- Confirm access to `.bmad-godot-game-dev/checklists/game-change-checklist`.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Establish Interaction Mode:**
|
||||
- Ask the user their preferred interaction mode:
|
||||
- **"Incrementally (Default & Recommended):** Work through the game-change-checklist section by section, discussing findings and drafting changes collaboratively. Best for complex node restructuring, language migrations, or performance optimizations."
|
||||
- **"YOLO Mode (Batch Processing):** Conduct batched analysis and present consolidated findings. Suitable for straightforward scene optimizations or export setting adjustments."
|
||||
- Confirm the selected mode and inform: "We will now use the game-change-checklist to analyze the change and draft proposed updates specific to our Godot game development context with 60+ FPS targets and TDD practices."
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Execute Game Development Checklist Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- Systematically work through the game-change-checklist sections:
|
||||
1. **Change Context & Game Impact**
|
||||
2. **Feature/System Impact Analysis**
|
||||
3. **Technical Artifact Conflict Resolution**
|
||||
4. **Performance & Platform Evaluation**
|
||||
5. **Path Forward Recommendation**
|
||||
|
||||
- For each checklist section:
|
||||
- Present Godot-specific prompts and considerations
|
||||
- Analyze impacts on:
|
||||
- Godot scenes and node hierarchies
|
||||
- Signal connections and dependencies
|
||||
- Performance metrics (60+ FPS requirement, frame time, draw calls)
|
||||
- GDScript vs C# language boundaries
|
||||
- Resource loading and object pooling
|
||||
- Platform export templates and settings
|
||||
- TDD test coverage (GUT for GDScript, GoDotTest for C#)
|
||||
- Discuss findings with performance profiler data
|
||||
- Record status: `[x] Addressed`, `[N/A]`, `[!] Further Action Needed`
|
||||
- Document Godot-specific decisions and language choices
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Draft Game-Specific Proposed Changes
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the analysis and agreed path forward:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Identify affected game artifacts requiring updates:**
|
||||
- GDD sections (mechanics, systems, progression)
|
||||
- Technical specifications (node architecture, 60+ FPS targets)
|
||||
- Godot-specific configurations (project settings, export presets)
|
||||
- Game story modifications (TDD requirements, language choices)
|
||||
- Resource import settings and compression
|
||||
- Platform export template configurations
|
||||
- Test suite updates (GUT/GoDotTest coverage)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Draft explicit changes for each artifact:**
|
||||
- **Game Stories:** Revise story text, TDD test requirements, GDScript/C# language selection
|
||||
- **Technical Specs:** Update node hierarchies, signal architectures, 60+ FPS validation
|
||||
- **Godot Configurations:** Propose project settings, rendering options, export templates
|
||||
- **GDD Updates:** Modify feature descriptions, balance parameters, progression systems
|
||||
- **Resource Specifications:** Adjust import settings, compression, pooling strategies
|
||||
- **Performance Targets:** Ensure 60+ FPS minimum, frame time <16.67ms, draw call budgets
|
||||
- **Test Coverage:** Update GUT tests for GDScript, GoDotTest for C# components
|
||||
|
||||
- **Include Godot-specific details:**
|
||||
- Scene tree structure changes
|
||||
- Node composition updates
|
||||
- Signal refactoring needs
|
||||
- Shader/material optimizations
|
||||
- Language migration paths (GDScript ↔ C#)
|
||||
- Object pooling implementations
|
||||
- Export preset modifications
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Generate "Godot Game Development Change Proposal"
|
||||
|
||||
- Create a comprehensive proposal document containing:
|
||||
|
||||
**A. Change Summary:**
|
||||
- Original issue (60+ FPS violation, language inefficiency, node bottleneck)
|
||||
- Godot systems affected (scenes, nodes, signals)
|
||||
- Platform/performance implications (frame time impact)
|
||||
- Chosen solution approach (GDScript optimization, C# migration, pooling)
|
||||
|
||||
**B. Technical Impact Analysis:**
|
||||
- Godot node architecture changes needed
|
||||
- Performance implications (profiler metrics, FPS measurements)
|
||||
- Language strategy adjustments (GDScript vs C# boundaries)
|
||||
- Resource loading and pooling modifications
|
||||
- Platform export compatibility effects
|
||||
- TDD test suite impacts (GUT/GoDotTest coverage)
|
||||
|
||||
**C. Specific Proposed Edits:**
|
||||
- For each game story: "Change Story GS-X.Y from: [old] To: [new with TDD requirements]"
|
||||
- For technical specs: "Update Godot Architecture Section X: [node/signal changes]"
|
||||
- For GDD: "Modify [Feature] in Section Y: [updates with performance targets]"
|
||||
- For project.godot: "Change [Setting] from [old_value] to [new_value]"
|
||||
- For language strategy: "Migrate [System] from GDScript to C# for performance"
|
||||
|
||||
**D. Implementation Considerations:**
|
||||
- Required Godot version (4.x vs 3.x LTS)
|
||||
- Resource reimport with optimized settings
|
||||
- Scene and node refactoring requirements
|
||||
- GDScript static typing enforcement
|
||||
- C# performance optimization needs
|
||||
- Object pooling implementation
|
||||
- Platform export template testing
|
||||
- TDD test updates (Red-Green-Refactor cycle)
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Finalize & Determine Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
- Obtain explicit approval for the "Godot Game Development Change Proposal"
|
||||
- Verify 60+ FPS targets are maintained post-change
|
||||
- Provide the finalized document to the user
|
||||
|
||||
- **Based on change scope:**
|
||||
- **Minor adjustments (can be handled in current sprint):**
|
||||
- Confirm task completion
|
||||
- Verify TDD tests are updated
|
||||
- Suggest handoff to game-developer agent for implementation
|
||||
- Note required performance profiling validation
|
||||
- **Major changes (require replanning):**
|
||||
- Clearly state need for deeper technical review
|
||||
- Recommend engaging Game Architect for node restructuring
|
||||
- Evaluate language migration complexity (GDScript ↔ C#)
|
||||
- Provide proposal as input for architecture revision
|
||||
- Flag any 60+ FPS risks or TDD coverage gaps
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
- **Primary:** "Godot Game Development Change Proposal" document containing:
|
||||
- Godot-specific change analysis
|
||||
- Technical impact assessment with node/signal context
|
||||
- Language strategy implications (GDScript vs C#)
|
||||
- Performance validation against 60+ FPS target
|
||||
- Clearly drafted updates for all affected game artifacts
|
||||
- TDD test coverage requirements
|
||||
- Implementation guidance following Carmack's optimization principles
|
||||
|
||||
- **Secondary:** Annotated game-change-checklist showing:
|
||||
- Technical decisions made (node architecture, language choices)
|
||||
- Performance trade-offs considered (profiler data)
|
||||
- Platform export accommodations
|
||||
- Godot-specific implementation notes
|
||||
- Required test updates (GUT/GoDotTest)
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,278 @@
|
||||
# Create Deep Research Prompt Task
|
||||
|
||||
This task helps create comprehensive research prompts for various types of deep analysis. It can process inputs from brainstorming sessions, project briefs, market research, or specific research questions to generate targeted prompts for deeper investigation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Generate well-structured research prompts that:
|
||||
|
||||
- Define clear research objectives and scope
|
||||
- Specify appropriate research methodologies
|
||||
- Outline expected deliverables and formats
|
||||
- Guide systematic investigation of complex topics
|
||||
- Ensure actionable insights are captured
|
||||
|
||||
## Research Type Selection
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: First, help the user select the most appropriate research focus based on their needs and any input documents they've provided.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Research Focus Options
|
||||
|
||||
Present these numbered options to the user:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Product Validation Research**
|
||||
- Validate product hypotheses and market fit
|
||||
- Test assumptions about user needs and solutions
|
||||
- Assess technical and business feasibility
|
||||
- Identify risks and mitigation strategies
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Market Opportunity Research**
|
||||
- Analyze market size and growth potential
|
||||
- Identify market segments and dynamics
|
||||
- Assess market entry strategies
|
||||
- Evaluate timing and market readiness
|
||||
|
||||
3. **User & Customer Research**
|
||||
- Deep dive into user personas and behaviors
|
||||
- Understand jobs-to-be-done and pain points
|
||||
- Map customer journeys and touchpoints
|
||||
- Analyze willingness to pay and value perception
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Competitive Intelligence Research**
|
||||
- Detailed competitor analysis and positioning
|
||||
- Feature and capability comparisons
|
||||
- Business model and strategy analysis
|
||||
- Identify competitive advantages and gaps
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Technology & Innovation Research**
|
||||
- Assess technology trends and possibilities
|
||||
- Evaluate technical approaches and architectures
|
||||
- Identify emerging technologies and disruptions
|
||||
- Analyze build vs. buy vs. partner options
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Industry & Ecosystem Research**
|
||||
- Map industry value chains and dynamics
|
||||
- Identify key players and relationships
|
||||
- Analyze regulatory and compliance factors
|
||||
- Understand partnership opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Strategic Options Research**
|
||||
- Evaluate different strategic directions
|
||||
- Assess business model alternatives
|
||||
- Analyze go-to-market strategies
|
||||
- Consider expansion and scaling paths
|
||||
|
||||
8. **Risk & Feasibility Research**
|
||||
- Identify and assess various risk factors
|
||||
- Evaluate implementation challenges
|
||||
- Analyze resource requirements
|
||||
- Consider regulatory and legal implications
|
||||
|
||||
9. **Custom Research Focus**
|
||||
- User-defined research objectives
|
||||
- Specialized domain investigation
|
||||
- Cross-functional research needs
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Input Processing
|
||||
|
||||
**If Project Brief provided:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Extract key product concepts and goals
|
||||
- Identify target users and use cases
|
||||
- Note technical constraints and preferences
|
||||
- Highlight uncertainties and assumptions
|
||||
|
||||
**If Brainstorming Results provided:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Synthesize main ideas and themes
|
||||
- Identify areas needing validation
|
||||
- Extract hypotheses to test
|
||||
- Note creative directions to explore
|
||||
|
||||
**If Market Research provided:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Build on identified opportunities
|
||||
- Deepen specific market insights
|
||||
- Validate initial findings
|
||||
- Explore adjacent possibilities
|
||||
|
||||
**If Starting Fresh:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Gather essential context through questions
|
||||
- Define the problem space
|
||||
- Clarify research objectives
|
||||
- Establish success criteria
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Research Prompt Structure
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: collaboratively develop a comprehensive research prompt with these components.
|
||||
|
||||
#### A. Research Objectives
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: collaborate with the user to articulate clear, specific objectives for the research.
|
||||
|
||||
- Primary research goal and purpose
|
||||
- Key decisions the research will inform
|
||||
- Success criteria for the research
|
||||
- Constraints and boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
#### B. Research Questions
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: collaborate with the user to develop specific, actionable research questions organized by theme.
|
||||
|
||||
**Core Questions:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Central questions that must be answered
|
||||
- Priority ranking of questions
|
||||
- Dependencies between questions
|
||||
|
||||
**Supporting Questions:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Additional context-building questions
|
||||
- Nice-to-have insights
|
||||
- Future-looking considerations
|
||||
|
||||
#### C. Research Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Collection Methods:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Secondary research sources
|
||||
- Primary research approaches (if applicable)
|
||||
- Data quality requirements
|
||||
- Source credibility criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Frameworks:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Specific frameworks to apply
|
||||
- Comparison criteria
|
||||
- Evaluation methodologies
|
||||
- Synthesis approaches
|
||||
|
||||
#### D. Output Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Format Specifications:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Executive summary requirements
|
||||
- Detailed findings structure
|
||||
- Visual/tabular presentations
|
||||
- Supporting documentation
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Deliverables:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Must-have sections and insights
|
||||
- Decision-support elements
|
||||
- Action-oriented recommendations
|
||||
- Risk and uncertainty documentation
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Prompt Generation
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Prompt Template:**
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Research Objective
|
||||
|
||||
[Clear statement of what this research aims to achieve]
|
||||
|
||||
## Background Context
|
||||
|
||||
[Relevant information from project brief, brainstorming, or other inputs]
|
||||
|
||||
## Research Questions
|
||||
|
||||
### Primary Questions (Must Answer)
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Specific, actionable question]
|
||||
2. [Specific, actionable question]
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
### Secondary Questions (Nice to Have)
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Supporting question]
|
||||
2. [Supporting question]
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
## Research Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
### Information Sources
|
||||
|
||||
- [Specific source types and priorities]
|
||||
|
||||
### Analysis Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
- [Specific frameworks to apply]
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [Quality, recency, credibility needs]
|
||||
|
||||
## Expected Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
### Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Key findings and insights
|
||||
- Critical implications
|
||||
- Recommended actions
|
||||
|
||||
### Detailed Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
[Specific sections needed based on research type]
|
||||
|
||||
### Supporting Materials
|
||||
|
||||
- Data tables
|
||||
- Comparison matrices
|
||||
- Source documentation
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
[How to evaluate if research achieved its objectives]
|
||||
|
||||
## Timeline and Priority
|
||||
|
||||
[If applicable, any time constraints or phasing]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Review and Refinement
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Present Complete Prompt**
|
||||
- Show the full research prompt
|
||||
- Explain key elements and rationale
|
||||
- Highlight any assumptions made
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Gather Feedback**
|
||||
- Are the objectives clear and correct?
|
||||
- Do the questions address all concerns?
|
||||
- Is the scope appropriate?
|
||||
- Are output requirements sufficient?
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Refine as Needed**
|
||||
- Incorporate user feedback
|
||||
- Adjust scope or focus
|
||||
- Add missing elements
|
||||
- Clarify ambiguities
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Next Steps Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
**Execution Options:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Use with AI Research Assistant**: Provide this prompt to an AI model with research capabilities
|
||||
2. **Guide Human Research**: Use as a framework for manual research efforts
|
||||
3. **Hybrid Approach**: Combine AI and human research using this structure
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration Points:**
|
||||
|
||||
- How findings will feed into next phases
|
||||
- Which team members should review results
|
||||
- How to validate findings
|
||||
- When to revisit or expand research
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- The quality of the research prompt directly impacts the quality of insights gathered
|
||||
- Be specific rather than general in research questions
|
||||
- Consider both current state and future implications
|
||||
- Balance comprehensiveness with focus
|
||||
- Document assumptions and limitations clearly
|
||||
- Plan for iterative refinement based on initial findings
|
||||
103
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/create-doc.md
Normal file
103
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/create-doc.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# Create Document from Template (YAML Driven)
|
||||
|
||||
## ⚠️ CRITICAL EXECUTION NOTICE ⚠️
|
||||
|
||||
**THIS IS AN EXECUTABLE WORKFLOW - NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL**
|
||||
|
||||
When this task is invoked:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **DISABLE ALL EFFICIENCY OPTIMIZATIONS** - This workflow requires full user interaction
|
||||
2. **MANDATORY STEP-BY-STEP EXECUTION** - Each section must be processed sequentially with user feedback
|
||||
3. **ELICITATION IS REQUIRED** - When `elicit: true`, you MUST use the 1-9 format and wait for user response
|
||||
4. **NO SHORTCUTS ALLOWED** - Complete documents cannot be created without following this workflow
|
||||
|
||||
**VIOLATION INDICATOR:** If you create a complete document without user interaction, you have violated this workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical: Template Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
If a YAML Template has not been provided, list all templates from .bmad-core/templates or ask the user to provide another.
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL: Mandatory Elicitation Format
|
||||
|
||||
**When `elicit: true`, this is a HARD STOP requiring user interaction:**
|
||||
|
||||
**YOU MUST:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Present section content
|
||||
2. Provide detailed rationale (explain trade-offs, assumptions, decisions made)
|
||||
3. **STOP and present numbered options 1-9:**
|
||||
- **Option 1:** Always "Proceed to next section"
|
||||
- **Options 2-9:** Select 8 methods from data/elicitation-methods
|
||||
- End with: "Select 1-9 or just type your question/feedback:"
|
||||
4. **WAIT FOR USER RESPONSE** - Do not proceed until user selects option or provides feedback
|
||||
|
||||
**WORKFLOW VIOLATION:** Creating content for elicit=true sections without user interaction violates this task.
|
||||
|
||||
**NEVER ask yes/no questions or use any other format.**
|
||||
|
||||
## Processing Flow
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Parse YAML template** - Load template metadata and sections
|
||||
2. **Set preferences** - Show current mode (Interactive), confirm output file
|
||||
3. **Process each section:**
|
||||
- Skip if condition unmet
|
||||
- Check agent permissions (owner/editors) - note if section is restricted to specific agents
|
||||
- Draft content using section instruction
|
||||
- Present content + detailed rationale
|
||||
- **IF elicit: true** → MANDATORY 1-9 options format
|
||||
- Save to file if possible
|
||||
4. **Continue until complete**
|
||||
|
||||
## Detailed Rationale Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
When presenting section content, ALWAYS include rationale that explains:
|
||||
|
||||
- Trade-offs and choices made (what was chosen over alternatives and why)
|
||||
- Key assumptions made during drafting
|
||||
- Interesting or questionable decisions that need user attention
|
||||
- Areas that might need validation
|
||||
|
||||
## Elicitation Results Flow
|
||||
|
||||
After user selects elicitation method (2-9):
|
||||
|
||||
1. Execute method from data/elicitation-methods
|
||||
2. Present results with insights
|
||||
3. Offer options:
|
||||
- **1. Apply changes and update section**
|
||||
- **2. Return to elicitation menu**
|
||||
- **3. Ask any questions or engage further with this elicitation**
|
||||
|
||||
## Agent Permissions
|
||||
|
||||
When processing sections with agent permission fields:
|
||||
|
||||
- **owner**: Note which agent role initially creates/populates the section
|
||||
- **editors**: List agent roles allowed to modify the section
|
||||
- **readonly**: Mark sections that cannot be modified after creation
|
||||
|
||||
**For sections with restricted access:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Include a note in the generated document indicating the responsible agent
|
||||
- Example: "_(This section is owned by dev-agent and can only be modified by dev-agent)_"
|
||||
|
||||
## YOLO Mode
|
||||
|
||||
User can type `#yolo` to toggle to YOLO mode (process all sections at once).
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL REMINDERS
|
||||
|
||||
**❌ NEVER:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Ask yes/no questions for elicitation
|
||||
- Use any format other than 1-9 numbered options
|
||||
- Create new elicitation methods
|
||||
|
||||
**✅ ALWAYS:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Use exact 1-9 format when elicit: true
|
||||
- Select options 2-9 from data/elicitation-methods only
|
||||
- Provide detailed rationale explaining decisions
|
||||
- End with "Select 1-9 or just type your question/feedback:"
|
||||
202
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/create-game-story.md
Normal file
202
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/create-game-story.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
|
||||
# Create Game Story Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
To identify the next logical game story based on project progress and epic definitions, and then to prepare a comprehensive, self-contained, and actionable story file using the `Game Story Template`. This task ensures the story is enriched with all necessary technical context, Godot-specific requirements (node architecture, GDScript/C# language selection, 60+ FPS performance targets), TDD test requirements, and acceptance criteria, making it ready for efficient implementation by a Game Developer Agent with minimal need for additional research or finding its own context.
|
||||
|
||||
## SEQUENTIAL Task Execution (Do not proceed until current Task is complete)
|
||||
|
||||
### 0. Load Core Configuration and Check Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
- Load `.bmad-godot-game-dev/config.yaml` from the project root
|
||||
- If the file does not exist, HALT and inform the user: "core-config.yaml not found. This file is required for story creation. You can either: 1) Copy core-config.yaml from GITHUB bmad-core/ and configure it for your game project OR 2) Run the BMad installer against your project to upgrade and add the file automatically. Please add and configure before proceeding."
|
||||
- Extract key configurations: `devStoryLocation`, `prd.*`, `architecture.*`, `workflow.*`
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Identify Next Story for Preparation
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1.1 Locate Epic Files and Review Existing Stories
|
||||
|
||||
- Based on `prdSharded` from config, locate epic files (sharded location/pattern or monolithic PRD sections)
|
||||
- If `devStoryLocation` has story files, load the highest `{epicNum}.{storyNum}.story.md` file
|
||||
- **If highest story exists:**
|
||||
- Verify status is 'Done'. If not, alert user: "ALERT: Found incomplete story! File: {lastEpicNum}.{lastStoryNum}.story.md Status: [current status] Check if TDD tests are passing (GUT/GoDotTest). You should fix this story first, but would you like to accept risk & override to create the next story in draft?"
|
||||
- If proceeding, select next sequential story in the current epic
|
||||
- If epic is complete, prompt user: "Epic {epicNum} Complete: All stories in Epic {epicNum} have been completed. Would you like to: 1) Begin Epic {epicNum + 1} with story 1 2) Select a specific story to work on 3) Cancel story creation"
|
||||
- **CRITICAL**: NEVER automatically skip to another epic. User MUST explicitly instruct which story to create.
|
||||
- **If no story files exist:** The next story is ALWAYS 1.1 (first story of first epic)
|
||||
- Announce the identified story to the user: "Identified next story for preparation: {epicNum}.{storyNum} - {Story Title}"
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Gather Story Requirements and Previous Story Context
|
||||
|
||||
- Extract story requirements from the identified epic file or PRD section
|
||||
- If previous story exists, review Dev Agent Record sections for:
|
||||
- Completion Notes and Debug Log References
|
||||
- Implementation deviations and technical decisions
|
||||
- Godot-specific challenges (node structure, signal connections, 60+ FPS violations)
|
||||
- Language decisions (GDScript vs C# choices and rationale)
|
||||
- Resource loading and object pooling implementations
|
||||
- TDD test coverage and any failing tests
|
||||
- Extract relevant insights that inform the current story's preparation
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Gather Architecture Context
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3.1 Determine Architecture Reading Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
- **If `architectureVersion: >= v3` and `architectureSharded: true`**: Read `{architectureShardedLocation}/index.md` then follow structured reading order below
|
||||
- **Else**: Use monolithic `architectureFile` for similar sections
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3.2 Read Architecture Documents Based on Story Type
|
||||
|
||||
**For ALL Game Stories:** tech-stack.md, godot-project-structure.md, coding-standards.md, test-strategy and standards.md, language-strategy.md
|
||||
|
||||
**For Gameplay/Mechanics Stories, additionally:** gameplay-systems-architecture.md, node-architecture-details.md, physics-configuration.md, input-system-architecture.md, state-machine-architecture.md, resource-architecture.md
|
||||
|
||||
**For UI/UX Stories, additionally:** node-architecture-details.md, ui-architecture.md, ui-component-system.md, ui-state-management.md, scene-management-architecture.md
|
||||
|
||||
**For Backend/Services Stories, additionally:** resource-architecture.md, data-persistence-architecture.md, save-system-implementation.md, analytics-integration.md, multiplayer-architecture.md
|
||||
|
||||
**For Graphics/Rendering Stories, additionally:** rendering-settings.md, shader-guidelines.md, sprite-management.md, particle-systems.md
|
||||
|
||||
**For Audio Stories, additionally:** audio-architecture.md, audio-mixing-configuration.md, sound-bank-management.md
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3.3 Extract Story-Specific Technical Details
|
||||
|
||||
Extract ONLY information directly relevant to implementing the current story. Do NOT invent new patterns, systems, or standards not in the source documents.
|
||||
|
||||
Extract:
|
||||
|
||||
- Specific Godot nodes and their inheritance hierarchy
|
||||
- Language selection rationale (GDScript vs C# for each component)
|
||||
- Node composition patterns and signal connections
|
||||
- Scene (.tscn) and resource (.tres) organization requirements
|
||||
- InputMap actions and device handling configurations
|
||||
- Physics2D/3D settings and collision layers
|
||||
- Control node anchoring and theme specifications
|
||||
- Resource naming conventions and folder structures
|
||||
- Performance budgets (60+ FPS minimum, frame time <16.67ms, draw calls)
|
||||
- Platform export settings (desktop, mobile, web)
|
||||
- TDD requirements with GUT (GDScript) and GoDotTest (C#)
|
||||
|
||||
ALWAYS cite source documents: `[Source: architecture/{filename}.md#{section}]`
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Godot-Specific Technical Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4.1 Language Strategy Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- Determine GDScript vs C# selection for each system based on:
|
||||
- Performance requirements (C# for compute-heavy operations)
|
||||
- Iteration speed needs (GDScript for rapid prototyping)
|
||||
- Existing codebase patterns
|
||||
- Document static typing enforcement in GDScript (10-20% performance gain)
|
||||
- Identify interop boundaries between GDScript and C#
|
||||
- Note any GDExtension or plugin requirements
|
||||
- Specify object pooling needs for spawned entities
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4.2 Scene and Node Planning
|
||||
|
||||
- Identify which scenes (.tscn) will be modified or created
|
||||
- List scene inheritance and composition patterns
|
||||
- Document node tree structure with parent-child relationships
|
||||
- Specify scene instancing and pooling requirements
|
||||
- Plan signal connections between nodes
|
||||
- Define Autoload/singleton needs
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4.3 Node Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
- Define custom node classes needed (extending Node2D, Control, etc.)
|
||||
- Specify Resource classes for data management
|
||||
- Document signal emission and connection patterns
|
||||
- Identify process vs physics_process usage
|
||||
- Note Control node UI components and theme requirements
|
||||
- Plan export variables for inspector configuration
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4.4 Resource Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- List texture requirements with import settings
|
||||
- Define AnimationPlayer and AnimationTree needs
|
||||
- Specify AudioStream resources and bus routing
|
||||
- Document shader and material requirements
|
||||
- Note font resources and theme variations
|
||||
- Plan resource preloading vs lazy loading strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Populate Story Template with Full Context
|
||||
|
||||
- Create new story file: `{devStoryLocation}/{epicNum}.{storyNum}.story.md` using Game Story Template
|
||||
- Fill in basic story information: Title, Status (Draft), Story statement, Acceptance Criteria from Epic/PRD
|
||||
- **`Dev Notes` section (CRITICAL):**
|
||||
- CRITICAL: This section MUST contain ONLY information extracted from architecture documents and PRD. NEVER invent or assume technical details.
|
||||
- Include ALL relevant technical details from Steps 2-4, organized by category:
|
||||
- **Previous Story Insights**: Key learnings from previous story implementation
|
||||
- **Language Strategy**: GDScript vs C# decisions for each component [with source references]
|
||||
- **Node Architecture**: Specific nodes, inheritance, signal patterns [with source references]
|
||||
- **Scene Specifications**: Scene modifications, node trees, instancing [with source references]
|
||||
- **Input Configuration**: InputMap actions, device handling [with source references]
|
||||
- **UI Implementation**: Control nodes, anchoring, themes [with source references]
|
||||
- **Resource Pipeline**: Resource requirements, import settings, pooling strategy
|
||||
- **Performance Targets**: 60+ FPS requirement, frame time budget, profiler metrics
|
||||
- **Platform Considerations**: Export template differences, platform-specific code
|
||||
- **TDD Requirements**: GUT tests for GDScript, GoDotTest for C#, test-first development
|
||||
- Every technical detail MUST include its source reference: `[Source: architecture/{filename}.md#{section}]`
|
||||
- If information for a category is not found in the architecture docs, explicitly state: "No specific guidance found in architecture docs"
|
||||
- **`Tasks / Subtasks` section:**
|
||||
- Generate detailed, sequential list of technical tasks based ONLY on: Epic/PRD Requirements, Story AC, Reviewed Architecture Information
|
||||
- Include Godot-specific tasks:
|
||||
- Write failing tests FIRST (TDD Red phase)
|
||||
- Scene setup and node hierarchy creation
|
||||
- Node implementation with proper \_ready/\_process methods
|
||||
- Signal connection and event handling
|
||||
- InputMap integration
|
||||
- Physics2D/3D configuration
|
||||
- Control node UI with responsive anchoring
|
||||
- Performance profiling (maintain 60+ FPS)
|
||||
- Make tests pass (TDD Green phase)
|
||||
- Refactor while keeping tests green (TDD Refactor phase)
|
||||
- Each task must reference relevant architecture documentation
|
||||
- Include GUT/GoDotTest testing as explicit subtasks
|
||||
- Link tasks to ACs where applicable (e.g., `Task 1 (AC: 1, 3)`)
|
||||
- Add notes on Godot project structure alignment or discrepancies found in Step 4
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Story Draft Completion and Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Review all sections for completeness and accuracy
|
||||
- Verify all source references are included for technical details
|
||||
- Ensure Godot-specific requirements are comprehensive:
|
||||
- All scenes and node trees documented
|
||||
- Language strategy (GDScript/C#) justified
|
||||
- Signal connections clear
|
||||
- Resource requirements specified
|
||||
- 60+ FPS performance targets defined
|
||||
- TDD test requirements explicit
|
||||
- Update status to "Draft" and save the story file
|
||||
- Execute `.bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/execute-checklist` `.bmad-godot-game-dev/checklists/game-story-dod-checklist`
|
||||
- Provide summary to user including:
|
||||
- Story created: `{devStoryLocation}/{epicNum}.{storyNum}.story.md`
|
||||
- Status: Draft
|
||||
- Language strategy decisions (GDScript vs C# components)
|
||||
- Key Godot nodes and systems included
|
||||
- Scene/node modifications required
|
||||
- Resource requirements identified
|
||||
- TDD test coverage planned
|
||||
- Performance impact assessment (60+ FPS maintained?)
|
||||
- Any deviations or conflicts noted between PRD and architecture
|
||||
- Checklist Results
|
||||
- Next steps: For complex Godot features, suggest the user review the story draft and optionally test critical assumptions in Godot Editor
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Godot-Specific Validation
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing, ensure:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Language strategy defined (GDScript vs C# for each component)
|
||||
- [ ] TDD approach specified (tests to write first)
|
||||
- [ ] All node inheritance and composition patterns documented
|
||||
- [ ] Signal connections and event flow mapped
|
||||
- [ ] Scene instancing and pooling strategy defined
|
||||
- [ ] InputMap actions configured
|
||||
- [ ] Control node UI follows Godot anchoring best practices
|
||||
- [ ] Performance profiling points identified (60+ FPS validation)
|
||||
- [ ] Resource import settings documented
|
||||
- [ ] Platform export settings noted
|
||||
- [ ] Object pooling implemented for spawned entities
|
||||
- [ ] Static typing enforced in all GDScript
|
||||
|
||||
This task ensures game development stories are immediately actionable and enable efficient AI-driven development of Godot game features with mandatory TDD practices and 60+ FPS performance targets.
|
||||
343
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/document-project.md
Normal file
343
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/document-project.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,343 @@
|
||||
# Document an Existing Project
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Generate comprehensive documentation for existing projects optimized for AI development agents. This task creates structured reference materials that enable AI agents to understand project context, conventions, and patterns for effective contribution to any codebase.
|
||||
|
||||
## Task Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Initial Project Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** First, check if a PRD or requirements document exists in context. If yes, use it to focus your documentation efforts on relevant areas only.
|
||||
|
||||
**IF PRD EXISTS**:
|
||||
|
||||
- Review the PRD to understand what enhancement/feature is planned
|
||||
- Identify which modules, services, or areas will be affected
|
||||
- Focus documentation ONLY on these relevant areas
|
||||
- Skip unrelated parts of the codebase to keep docs lean
|
||||
|
||||
**IF NO PRD EXISTS**:
|
||||
Ask the user:
|
||||
|
||||
"I notice you haven't provided a PRD or requirements document. To create more focused and useful documentation, I recommend one of these options:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Create a PRD first** - Would you like me to help create a brownfield PRD before documenting? This helps focus documentation on relevant areas.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Provide existing requirements** - Do you have a requirements document, epic, or feature description you can share?
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Describe the focus** - Can you briefly describe what enhancement or feature you're planning? For example:
|
||||
- 'Adding payment processing to the user service'
|
||||
- 'Refactoring the authentication module'
|
||||
- 'Integrating with a new third-party API'
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Document everything** - Or should I proceed with comprehensive documentation of the entire codebase? (Note: This may create excessive documentation for large projects)
|
||||
|
||||
Please let me know your preference, or I can proceed with full documentation if you prefer."
|
||||
|
||||
Based on their response:
|
||||
|
||||
- If they choose option 1-3: Use that context to focus documentation
|
||||
- If they choose option 4 or decline: Proceed with comprehensive analysis below
|
||||
|
||||
Begin by conducting analysis of the existing project. Use available tools to:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Project Structure Discovery**: Examine the root directory structure, identify main folders, and understand the overall organization
|
||||
2. **Technology Stack Identification**: Look for package.json, requirements.txt, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, etc. to identify languages, frameworks, and dependencies
|
||||
3. **Build System Analysis**: Find build scripts, CI/CD configurations, and development commands
|
||||
4. **Existing Documentation Review**: Check for README files, docs folders, and any existing documentation
|
||||
5. **Code Pattern Analysis**: Sample key files to understand coding patterns, naming conventions, and architectural approaches
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user these elicitation questions to better understand their needs:
|
||||
|
||||
- What is the primary purpose of this project?
|
||||
- Are there any specific areas of the codebase that are particularly complex or important for agents to understand?
|
||||
- What types of tasks do you expect AI agents to perform on this project? (e.g., bug fixes, feature additions, refactoring, testing)
|
||||
- Are there any existing documentation standards or formats you prefer?
|
||||
- What level of technical detail should the documentation target? (junior developers, senior developers, mixed team)
|
||||
- Is there a specific feature or enhancement you're planning? (This helps focus documentation)
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Deep Codebase Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: Before generating documentation, conduct extensive analysis of the existing codebase:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Explore Key Areas**:
|
||||
- Entry points (main files, index files, app initializers)
|
||||
- Configuration files and environment setup
|
||||
- Package dependencies and versions
|
||||
- Build and deployment configurations
|
||||
- Test suites and coverage
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Ask Clarifying Questions**:
|
||||
- "I see you're using [technology X]. Are there any custom patterns or conventions I should document?"
|
||||
- "What are the most critical/complex parts of this system that developers struggle with?"
|
||||
- "Are there any undocumented 'tribal knowledge' areas I should capture?"
|
||||
- "What technical debt or known issues should I document?"
|
||||
- "Which parts of the codebase change most frequently?"
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Map the Reality**:
|
||||
- Identify ACTUAL patterns used (not theoretical best practices)
|
||||
- Find where key business logic lives
|
||||
- Locate integration points and external dependencies
|
||||
- Document workarounds and technical debt
|
||||
- Note areas that differ from standard patterns
|
||||
|
||||
**IF PRD PROVIDED**: Also analyze what would need to change for the enhancement
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Core Documentation Generation
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: Generate a comprehensive BROWNFIELD architecture document that reflects the ACTUAL state of the codebase.
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL**: This is NOT an aspirational architecture document. Document what EXISTS, including:
|
||||
|
||||
- Technical debt and workarounds
|
||||
- Inconsistent patterns between different parts
|
||||
- Legacy code that can't be changed
|
||||
- Integration constraints
|
||||
- Performance bottlenecks
|
||||
|
||||
**Document Structure**:
|
||||
|
||||
# [Project Name] Brownfield Architecture Document
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
This document captures the CURRENT STATE of the [Project Name] codebase, including technical debt, workarounds, and real-world patterns. It serves as a reference for AI agents working on enhancements.
|
||||
|
||||
### Document Scope
|
||||
|
||||
[If PRD provided: "Focused on areas relevant to: {enhancement description}"]
|
||||
[If no PRD: "Comprehensive documentation of entire system"]
|
||||
|
||||
### Change Log
|
||||
|
||||
| Date | Version | Description | Author |
|
||||
| ------ | ------- | --------------------------- | --------- |
|
||||
| [Date] | 1.0 | Initial brownfield analysis | [Analyst] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference - Key Files and Entry Points
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Files for Understanding the System
|
||||
|
||||
- **Main Entry**: `src/index.js` (or actual entry point)
|
||||
- **Configuration**: `config/app.config.js`, `.env.example`
|
||||
- **Core Business Logic**: `src/services/`, `src/domain/`
|
||||
- **API Definitions**: `src/routes/` or link to OpenAPI spec
|
||||
- **Database Models**: `src/models/` or link to schema files
|
||||
- **Key Algorithms**: [List specific files with complex logic]
|
||||
|
||||
### If PRD Provided - Enhancement Impact Areas
|
||||
|
||||
[Highlight which files/modules will be affected by the planned enhancement]
|
||||
|
||||
## High Level Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Summary
|
||||
|
||||
### Actual Tech Stack (from package.json/requirements.txt)
|
||||
|
||||
| Category | Technology | Version | Notes |
|
||||
| --------- | ---------- | ------- | -------------------------- |
|
||||
| Runtime | Node.js | 16.x | [Any constraints] |
|
||||
| Framework | Express | 4.18.2 | [Custom middleware?] |
|
||||
| Database | PostgreSQL | 13 | [Connection pooling setup] |
|
||||
|
||||
etc...
|
||||
|
||||
### Repository Structure Reality Check
|
||||
|
||||
- Type: [Monorepo/Polyrepo/Hybrid]
|
||||
- Package Manager: [npm/yarn/pnpm]
|
||||
- Notable: [Any unusual structure decisions]
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Tree and Module Organization
|
||||
|
||||
### Project Structure (Actual)
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
project-root/
|
||||
├── src/
|
||||
│ ├── controllers/ # HTTP request handlers
|
||||
│ ├── services/ # Business logic (NOTE: inconsistent patterns between user and payment services)
|
||||
│ ├── models/ # Database models (Sequelize)
|
||||
│ ├── utils/ # Mixed bag - needs refactoring
|
||||
│ └── legacy/ # DO NOT MODIFY - old payment system still in use
|
||||
├── tests/ # Jest tests (60% coverage)
|
||||
├── scripts/ # Build and deployment scripts
|
||||
└── config/ # Environment configs
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Modules and Their Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
- **User Management**: `src/services/userService.js` - Handles all user operations
|
||||
- **Authentication**: `src/middleware/auth.js` - JWT-based, custom implementation
|
||||
- **Payment Processing**: `src/legacy/payment.js` - CRITICAL: Do not refactor, tightly coupled
|
||||
- **[List other key modules with their actual files]**
|
||||
|
||||
## Data Models and APIs
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Models
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of duplicating, reference actual model files:
|
||||
|
||||
- **User Model**: See `src/models/User.js`
|
||||
- **Order Model**: See `src/models/Order.js`
|
||||
- **Related Types**: TypeScript definitions in `src/types/`
|
||||
|
||||
### API Specifications
|
||||
|
||||
- **OpenAPI Spec**: `docs/api/openapi.yaml` (if exists)
|
||||
- **Postman Collection**: `docs/api/postman-collection.json`
|
||||
- **Manual Endpoints**: [List any undocumented endpoints discovered]
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Debt and Known Issues
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Technical Debt
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Payment Service**: Legacy code in `src/legacy/payment.js` - tightly coupled, no tests
|
||||
2. **User Service**: Different pattern than other services, uses callbacks instead of promises
|
||||
3. **Database Migrations**: Manually tracked, no proper migration tool
|
||||
4. **[Other significant debt]**
|
||||
|
||||
### Workarounds and Gotchas
|
||||
|
||||
- **Environment Variables**: Must set `NODE_ENV=production` even for staging (historical reason)
|
||||
- **Database Connections**: Connection pool hardcoded to 10, changing breaks payment service
|
||||
- **[Other workarounds developers need to know]**
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration Points and External Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
### External Services
|
||||
|
||||
| Service | Purpose | Integration Type | Key Files |
|
||||
| -------- | -------- | ---------------- | ------------------------------ |
|
||||
| Stripe | Payments | REST API | `src/integrations/stripe/` |
|
||||
| SendGrid | Emails | SDK | `src/services/emailService.js` |
|
||||
|
||||
etc...
|
||||
|
||||
### Internal Integration Points
|
||||
|
||||
- **Frontend Communication**: REST API on port 3000, expects specific headers
|
||||
- **Background Jobs**: Redis queue, see `src/workers/`
|
||||
- **[Other integrations]**
|
||||
|
||||
## Development and Deployment
|
||||
|
||||
### Local Development Setup
|
||||
|
||||
1. Actual steps that work (not ideal steps)
|
||||
2. Known issues with setup
|
||||
3. Required environment variables (see `.env.example`)
|
||||
|
||||
### Build and Deployment Process
|
||||
|
||||
- **Build Command**: `npm run build` (webpack config in `webpack.config.js`)
|
||||
- **Deployment**: Manual deployment via `scripts/deploy.sh`
|
||||
- **Environments**: Dev, Staging, Prod (see `config/environments/`)
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing Reality
|
||||
|
||||
### Current Test Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
- Unit Tests: 60% coverage (Jest)
|
||||
- Integration Tests: Minimal, in `tests/integration/`
|
||||
- E2E Tests: None
|
||||
- Manual Testing: Primary QA method
|
||||
|
||||
### Running Tests
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npm test # Runs unit tests
|
||||
npm run test:integration # Runs integration tests (requires local DB)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## If Enhancement PRD Provided - Impact Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Files That Will Need Modification
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the enhancement requirements, these files will be affected:
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/services/userService.js` - Add new user fields
|
||||
- `src/models/User.js` - Update schema
|
||||
- `src/routes/userRoutes.js` - New endpoints
|
||||
- [etc...]
|
||||
|
||||
### New Files/Modules Needed
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/services/newFeatureService.js` - New business logic
|
||||
- `src/models/NewFeature.js` - New data model
|
||||
- [etc...]
|
||||
|
||||
### Integration Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
- Will need to integrate with existing auth middleware
|
||||
- Must follow existing response format in `src/utils/responseFormatter.js`
|
||||
- [Other integration points]
|
||||
|
||||
## Appendix - Useful Commands and Scripts
|
||||
|
||||
### Frequently Used Commands
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npm run dev # Start development server
|
||||
npm run build # Production build
|
||||
npm run migrate # Run database migrations
|
||||
npm run seed # Seed test data
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Debugging and Troubleshooting
|
||||
|
||||
- **Logs**: Check `logs/app.log` for application logs
|
||||
- **Debug Mode**: Set `DEBUG=app:*` for verbose logging
|
||||
- **Common Issues**: See `docs/troubleshooting.md`]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Document Delivery
|
||||
|
||||
1. **In Web UI (Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude)**:
|
||||
- Present the entire document in one response (or multiple if too long)
|
||||
- Tell user to copy and save as `docs/brownfield-architecture.md` or `docs/project-architecture.md`
|
||||
- Mention it can be sharded later in IDE if needed
|
||||
|
||||
2. **In IDE Environment**:
|
||||
- Create the document as `docs/brownfield-architecture.md`
|
||||
- Inform user this single document contains all architectural information
|
||||
- Can be sharded later using PO agent if desired
|
||||
|
||||
The document should be comprehensive enough that future agents can understand:
|
||||
|
||||
- The actual state of the system (not idealized)
|
||||
- Where to find key files and logic
|
||||
- What technical debt exists
|
||||
- What constraints must be respected
|
||||
- If PRD provided: What needs to change for the enhancement]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Quality Assurance
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: Before finalizing the document:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Accuracy Check**: Verify all technical details match the actual codebase
|
||||
2. **Completeness Review**: Ensure all major system components are documented
|
||||
3. **Focus Validation**: If user provided scope, verify relevant areas are emphasized
|
||||
4. **Clarity Assessment**: Check that explanations are clear for AI agents
|
||||
5. **Navigation**: Ensure document has clear section structure for easy reference
|
||||
|
||||
Apply the advanced elicitation task after major sections to refine based on user feedback.
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- Single comprehensive brownfield architecture document created
|
||||
- Document reflects REALITY including technical debt and workarounds
|
||||
- Key files and modules are referenced with actual paths
|
||||
- Models/APIs reference source files rather than duplicating content
|
||||
- If PRD provided: Clear impact analysis showing what needs to change
|
||||
- Document enables AI agents to navigate and understand the actual codebase
|
||||
- Technical constraints and "gotchas" are clearly documented
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- This task creates ONE document that captures the TRUE state of the system
|
||||
- References actual files rather than duplicating content when possible
|
||||
- Documents technical debt, workarounds, and constraints honestly
|
||||
- For brownfield projects with PRD: Provides clear enhancement impact analysis
|
||||
- The goal is PRACTICAL documentation for AI agents doing real work
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# Checklist Validation Task
|
||||
|
||||
This task provides instructions for validating documentation against checklists. The agent MUST follow these instructions to ensure thorough and systematic validation of documents.
|
||||
|
||||
## Available Checklists
|
||||
|
||||
If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists available to the agent persona. If the task is being run not with a specific agent, tell the user to check the .bmad-godot-game-dev/checklists folder to select the appropriate one to run.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Initial Assessment**
|
||||
- If user or the task being run provides a checklist name:
|
||||
- Try fuzzy matching (e.g. "architecture checklist" -> "architect-checklist")
|
||||
- If multiple matches found, ask user to clarify
|
||||
- Load the appropriate checklist from .bmad-godot-game-dev/checklists/
|
||||
- If no checklist specified:
|
||||
- Ask the user which checklist they want to use
|
||||
- Present the available options from the files in the checklists folder
|
||||
- Confirm if they want to work through the checklist:
|
||||
- Section by section (interactive mode - very time consuming)
|
||||
- All at once (YOLO mode - recommended for checklists, there will be a summary of sections at the end to discuss)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Document and Artifact Gathering**
|
||||
- Each checklist will specify its required documents/artifacts at the beginning
|
||||
- Follow the checklist's specific instructions for what to gather, generally a file can be resolved in the docs folder, if not or unsure, halt and ask or confirm with the user.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Checklist Processing**
|
||||
|
||||
If in interactive mode:
|
||||
- Work through each section of the checklist one at a time
|
||||
- For each section:
|
||||
- Review all items in the section following instructions for that section embedded in the checklist
|
||||
- Check each item against the relevant documentation or artifacts as appropriate
|
||||
- Present summary of findings for that section, highlighting warnings, errors and non applicable items (rationale for non-applicability).
|
||||
- Get user confirmation before proceeding to next section or if any thing major do we need to halt and take corrective action
|
||||
|
||||
If in YOLO mode:
|
||||
- Process all sections at once
|
||||
- Create a comprehensive report of all findings
|
||||
- Present the complete analysis to the user
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Validation Approach**
|
||||
|
||||
For each checklist item:
|
||||
- Read and understand the requirement
|
||||
- Look for evidence in the documentation that satisfies the requirement
|
||||
- Consider both explicit mentions and implicit coverage
|
||||
- Aside from this, follow all checklist llm instructions
|
||||
- Mark items as:
|
||||
- ✅ PASS: Requirement clearly met
|
||||
- ❌ FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage
|
||||
- ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement
|
||||
- N/A: Not applicable to this case
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section Analysis**
|
||||
|
||||
For each section:
|
||||
- think step by step to calculate pass rate
|
||||
- Identify common themes in failed items
|
||||
- Provide specific recommendations for improvement
|
||||
- In interactive mode, discuss findings with user
|
||||
- Document any user decisions or explanations
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Final Report**
|
||||
|
||||
Prepare a summary that includes:
|
||||
- Overall checklist completion status
|
||||
- Pass rates by section
|
||||
- List of failed items with context
|
||||
- Specific recommendations for improvement
|
||||
- Any sections or items marked as N/A with justification
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Execution Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
Each checklist now contains embedded LLM prompts and instructions that will:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Guide thorough thinking** - Prompts ensure deep analysis of each section
|
||||
2. **Request specific artifacts** - Clear instructions on what documents/access is needed
|
||||
3. **Provide contextual guidance** - Section-specific prompts for better validation
|
||||
4. **Generate comprehensive reports** - Final summary with detailed findings
|
||||
|
||||
The LLM will:
|
||||
|
||||
- Execute the complete checklist validation
|
||||
- Present a final report with pass/fail rates and key findings
|
||||
- Offer to provide detailed analysis of any section, especially those with warnings or failures
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
docOutputLocation: docs/brainstorming-session-results.md
|
||||
template: '.bmad-godot-game-dev/templates/brainstorming-output-tmpl.yaml'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Facilitate Brainstorming Session Task
|
||||
|
||||
Facilitate interactive brainstorming sessions with users. Be creative and adaptive in applying techniques.
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Session Setup
|
||||
|
||||
Ask 4 context questions (don't preview what happens next):
|
||||
|
||||
1. What are we brainstorming about?
|
||||
2. Any constraints or parameters?
|
||||
3. Goal: broad exploration or focused ideation?
|
||||
4. Do you want a structured document output to reference later? (Default Yes)
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Present Approach Options
|
||||
|
||||
After getting answers to Step 1, present 4 approach options (numbered):
|
||||
|
||||
1. User selects specific techniques
|
||||
2. Analyst recommends techniques based on context
|
||||
3. Random technique selection for creative variety
|
||||
4. Progressive technique flow (start broad, narrow down)
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Execute Techniques Interactively
|
||||
|
||||
**KEY PRINCIPLES:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **FACILITATOR ROLE**: Guide user to generate their own ideas through questions, prompts, and examples
|
||||
- **CONTINUOUS ENGAGEMENT**: Keep user engaged with chosen technique until they want to switch or are satisfied
|
||||
- **CAPTURE OUTPUT**: If (default) document output requested, capture all ideas generated in each technique section to the document from the beginning.
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique Selection:**
|
||||
If user selects Option 1, present numbered list of techniques from the brainstorming-techniques data file. User can select by number..
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique Execution:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Apply selected technique according to data file description
|
||||
2. Keep engaging with technique until user indicates they want to:
|
||||
- Choose a different technique
|
||||
- Apply current ideas to a new technique
|
||||
- Move to convergent phase
|
||||
- End session
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Capture (if requested):**
|
||||
For each technique used, capture:
|
||||
|
||||
- Technique name and duration
|
||||
- Key ideas generated by user
|
||||
- Insights and patterns identified
|
||||
- User's reflections on the process
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Session Flow
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Warm-up** (5-10 min) - Build creative confidence
|
||||
2. **Divergent** (20-30 min) - Generate quantity over quality
|
||||
3. **Convergent** (15-20 min) - Group and categorize ideas
|
||||
4. **Synthesis** (10-15 min) - Refine and develop concepts
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Document Output (if requested)
|
||||
|
||||
Generate structured document with these sections:
|
||||
|
||||
**Executive Summary**
|
||||
|
||||
- Session topic and goals
|
||||
- Techniques used and duration
|
||||
- Total ideas generated
|
||||
- Key themes and patterns identified
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique Sections** (for each technique used)
|
||||
|
||||
- Technique name and description
|
||||
- Ideas generated (user's own words)
|
||||
- Insights discovered
|
||||
- Notable connections or patterns
|
||||
|
||||
**Idea Categorization**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Immediate Opportunities** - Ready to implement now
|
||||
- **Future Innovations** - Requires development/research
|
||||
- **Moonshots** - Ambitious, transformative concepts
|
||||
- **Insights & Learnings** - Key realizations from session
|
||||
|
||||
**Action Planning**
|
||||
|
||||
- Top 3 priority ideas with rationale
|
||||
- Next steps for each priority
|
||||
- Resources/research needed
|
||||
- Timeline considerations
|
||||
|
||||
**Reflection & Follow-up**
|
||||
|
||||
- What worked well in this session
|
||||
- Areas for further exploration
|
||||
- Recommended follow-up techniques
|
||||
- Questions that emerged for future sessions
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- **YOU ARE A FACILITATOR**: Guide the user to brainstorm, don't brainstorm for them (unless they request it persistently)
|
||||
- **INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE**: Ask questions, wait for responses, build on their ideas
|
||||
- **ONE TECHNIQUE AT A TIME**: Don't mix multiple techniques in one response
|
||||
- **CONTINUOUS ENGAGEMENT**: Stay with one technique until user wants to switch
|
||||
- **DRAW IDEAS OUT**: Use prompts and examples to help them generate their own ideas
|
||||
- **REAL-TIME ADAPTATION**: Monitor engagement and adjust approach as needed
|
||||
- Maintain energy and momentum
|
||||
- Defer judgment during generation
|
||||
- Quantity leads to quality (aim for 100 ideas in 60 minutes)
|
||||
- Build on ideas collaboratively
|
||||
- Document everything in output document
|
||||
|
||||
## Advanced Engagement Strategies
|
||||
|
||||
**Energy Management**
|
||||
|
||||
- Check engagement levels: "How are you feeling about this direction?"
|
||||
- Offer breaks or technique switches if energy flags
|
||||
- Use encouraging language and celebrate idea generation
|
||||
|
||||
**Depth vs. Breadth**
|
||||
|
||||
- Ask follow-up questions to deepen ideas: "Tell me more about that..."
|
||||
- Use "Yes, and..." to build on their ideas
|
||||
- Help them make connections: "How does this relate to your earlier idea about...?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Transition Management**
|
||||
|
||||
- Always ask before switching techniques: "Ready to try a different approach?"
|
||||
- Offer options: "Should we explore this idea deeper or generate more alternatives?"
|
||||
- Respect their process and timing
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
|
||||
# Create Brownfield Epic Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Create a single epic for smaller brownfield enhancements that don't require the full PRD and Architecture documentation process. This task is for isolated features or modifications that can be completed within a focused scope.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use This Task
|
||||
|
||||
**Use this task when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement can be completed in 1-3 stories
|
||||
- No significant architectural changes are required
|
||||
- The enhancement follows existing project patterns
|
||||
- Integration complexity is minimal
|
||||
- Risk to existing system is low
|
||||
|
||||
**Use the full brownfield PRD/Architecture process when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement requires multiple coordinated stories
|
||||
- Architectural planning is needed
|
||||
- Significant integration work is required
|
||||
- Risk assessment and mitigation planning is necessary
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Project Analysis (Required)
|
||||
|
||||
Before creating the epic, gather essential information about the existing project:
|
||||
|
||||
**Existing Project Context:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Project purpose and current functionality understood
|
||||
- [ ] Existing technology stack identified
|
||||
- [ ] Current architecture patterns noted
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points with existing system identified
|
||||
|
||||
**Enhancement Scope:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Enhancement clearly defined and scoped
|
||||
- [ ] Impact on existing functionality assessed
|
||||
- [ ] Required integration points identified
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria established
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Epic Creation
|
||||
|
||||
Create a focused epic following this structure:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Epic Title
|
||||
|
||||
{{Enhancement Name}} - Brownfield Enhancement
|
||||
|
||||
#### Epic Goal
|
||||
|
||||
{{1-2 sentences describing what the epic will accomplish and why it adds value}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Epic Description
|
||||
|
||||
**Existing System Context:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Current relevant functionality: {{brief description}}
|
||||
- Technology stack: {{relevant existing technologies}}
|
||||
- Integration points: {{where new work connects to existing system}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Enhancement Details:**
|
||||
|
||||
- What's being added/changed: {{clear description}}
|
||||
- How it integrates: {{integration approach}}
|
||||
- Success criteria: {{measurable outcomes}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Stories
|
||||
|
||||
List 1-3 focused stories that complete the epic:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Story 1:** {{Story title and brief description}}
|
||||
2. **Story 2:** {{Story title and brief description}}
|
||||
3. **Story 3:** {{Story title and brief description}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Compatibility Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Existing APIs remain unchanged
|
||||
- [ ] Database schema changes are backward compatible
|
||||
- [ ] UI changes follow existing patterns
|
||||
- [ ] Performance impact is minimal
|
||||
|
||||
#### Risk Mitigation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Primary Risk:** {{main risk to existing system}}
|
||||
- **Mitigation:** {{how risk will be addressed}}
|
||||
- **Rollback Plan:** {{how to undo changes if needed}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Definition of Done
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All stories completed with acceptance criteria met
|
||||
- [ ] Existing functionality verified through testing
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points working correctly
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation updated appropriately
|
||||
- [ ] No regression in existing features
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing the epic, ensure:
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope Validation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Epic can be completed in 1-3 stories maximum
|
||||
- [ ] No architectural documentation is required
|
||||
- [ ] Enhancement follows existing patterns
|
||||
- [ ] Integration complexity is manageable
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Assessment:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Risk to existing system is low
|
||||
- [ ] Rollback plan is feasible
|
||||
- [ ] Testing approach covers existing functionality
|
||||
- [ ] Team has sufficient knowledge of integration points
|
||||
|
||||
**Completeness Check:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Epic goal is clear and achievable
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are properly scoped
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria are measurable
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies are identified
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Handoff to Story Manager
|
||||
|
||||
Once the epic is validated, provide this handoff to the Story Manager:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Manager Handoff:**
|
||||
|
||||
"Please develop detailed user stories for this brownfield epic. Key considerations:
|
||||
|
||||
- This is an enhancement to an existing system running {{technology stack}}
|
||||
- Integration points: {{list key integration points}}
|
||||
- Existing patterns to follow: {{relevant existing patterns}}
|
||||
- Critical compatibility requirements: {{key requirements}}
|
||||
- Each story must include verification that existing functionality remains intact
|
||||
|
||||
The epic should maintain system integrity while delivering {{epic goal}}."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
The epic creation is successful when:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Enhancement scope is clearly defined and appropriately sized
|
||||
2. Integration approach respects existing system architecture
|
||||
3. Risk to existing functionality is minimized
|
||||
4. Stories are logically sequenced for safe implementation
|
||||
5. Compatibility requirements are clearly specified
|
||||
6. Rollback plan is feasible and documented
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- This task is specifically for SMALL brownfield enhancements
|
||||
- If the scope grows beyond 3 stories, consider the full brownfield PRD process
|
||||
- Always prioritize existing system integrity over new functionality
|
||||
- When in doubt about scope or complexity, escalate to full brownfield planning
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
|
||||
# Create Brownfield Story Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Create a single user story for very small brownfield enhancements that can be completed in one focused development session. This task is for minimal additions or bug fixes that require existing system integration awareness.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use This Task
|
||||
|
||||
**Use this task when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement can be completed in a single story
|
||||
- No new architecture or significant design is required
|
||||
- The change follows existing patterns exactly
|
||||
- Integration is straightforward with minimal risk
|
||||
- Change is isolated with clear boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
**Use brownfield-create-epic when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement requires 2-3 coordinated stories
|
||||
- Some design work is needed
|
||||
- Multiple integration points are involved
|
||||
|
||||
**Use the full brownfield PRD/Architecture process when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The enhancement requires multiple coordinated stories
|
||||
- Architectural planning is needed
|
||||
- Significant integration work is required
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Quick Project Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
Gather minimal but essential context about the existing project:
|
||||
|
||||
**Current System Context:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Relevant existing functionality identified
|
||||
- [ ] Technology stack for this area noted
|
||||
- [ ] Integration point(s) clearly understood
|
||||
- [ ] Existing patterns for similar work identified
|
||||
|
||||
**Change Scope:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Specific change clearly defined
|
||||
- [ ] Impact boundaries identified
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria established
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Story Creation
|
||||
|
||||
Create a single focused story following this structure:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Story Title
|
||||
|
||||
{{Specific Enhancement}} - Brownfield Addition
|
||||
|
||||
#### User Story
|
||||
|
||||
As a {{user type}},
|
||||
I want {{specific action/capability}},
|
||||
So that {{clear benefit/value}}.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Story Context
|
||||
|
||||
**Existing System Integration:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Integrates with: {{existing component/system}}
|
||||
- Technology: {{relevant tech stack}}
|
||||
- Follows pattern: {{existing pattern to follow}}
|
||||
- Touch points: {{specific integration points}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Functional Requirements:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. {{Primary functional requirement}}
|
||||
2. {{Secondary functional requirement (if any)}}
|
||||
3. {{Integration requirement}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration Requirements:** 4. Existing {{relevant functionality}} continues to work unchanged 5. New functionality follows existing {{pattern}} pattern 6. Integration with {{system/component}} maintains current behavior
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Requirements:** 7. Change is covered by appropriate tests 8. Documentation is updated if needed 9. No regression in existing functionality verified
|
||||
|
||||
#### Technical Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- **Integration Approach:** {{how it connects to existing system}}
|
||||
- **Existing Pattern Reference:** {{link or description of pattern to follow}}
|
||||
- **Key Constraints:** {{any important limitations or requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Definition of Done
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Functional requirements met
|
||||
- [ ] Integration requirements verified
|
||||
- [ ] Existing functionality regression tested
|
||||
- [ ] Code follows existing patterns and standards
|
||||
- [ ] Tests pass (existing and new)
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation updated if applicable
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Risk and Compatibility Check
|
||||
|
||||
**Minimal Risk Assessment:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Primary Risk:** {{main risk to existing system}}
|
||||
- **Mitigation:** {{simple mitigation approach}}
|
||||
- **Rollback:** {{how to undo if needed}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Compatibility Verification:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No breaking changes to existing APIs
|
||||
- [ ] Database changes (if any) are additive only
|
||||
- [ ] UI changes follow existing design patterns
|
||||
- [ ] Performance impact is negligible
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing the story, confirm:
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope Validation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Story can be completed in one development session
|
||||
- [ ] Integration approach is straightforward
|
||||
- [ ] Follows existing patterns exactly
|
||||
- [ ] No design or architecture work required
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity Check:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Story requirements are unambiguous
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points are clearly specified
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria are testable
|
||||
- [ ] Rollback approach is simple
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
The story creation is successful when:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Enhancement is clearly defined and appropriately scoped for single session
|
||||
2. Integration approach is straightforward and low-risk
|
||||
3. Existing system patterns are identified and will be followed
|
||||
4. Rollback plan is simple and feasible
|
||||
5. Acceptance criteria include existing functionality verification
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- This task is for VERY SMALL brownfield changes only
|
||||
- If complexity grows during analysis, escalate to brownfield-create-epic
|
||||
- Always prioritize existing system integrity
|
||||
- When in doubt about integration complexity, use brownfield-create-epic instead
|
||||
- Stories should take no more than 4 hours of focused development work
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
|
||||
# Game Design Brainstorming Techniques Task
|
||||
|
||||
This task provides a comprehensive toolkit of creative brainstorming techniques specifically designed for game design ideation and innovative thinking. The game designer can use these techniques to facilitate productive brainstorming sessions focused on game mechanics, player experience, and creative concepts.
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Session Setup
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: Begin by understanding the game design context and goals. Ask clarifying questions if needed to determine the best approach for game-specific ideation.]]
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Establish Game Context**
|
||||
- Understand the game genre or opportunity area
|
||||
- Identify target audience and platform constraints
|
||||
- Determine session goals (concept exploration vs. mechanic refinement)
|
||||
- Clarify scope (full game vs. specific feature)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Select Technique Approach**
|
||||
- Option A: User selects specific game design techniques
|
||||
- Option B: Game Designer recommends techniques based on context
|
||||
- Option C: Random technique selection for creative variety
|
||||
- Option D: Progressive technique flow (broad concepts to specific mechanics)
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Game Design Brainstorming Techniques
|
||||
|
||||
#### Game Concept Expansion Techniques
|
||||
|
||||
1. **"What If" Game Scenarios**
|
||||
[[LLM: Generate provocative what-if questions that challenge game design assumptions and expand thinking beyond current genre limitations.]]
|
||||
- What if players could rewind time in any genre?
|
||||
- What if the game world reacted to the player's real-world location?
|
||||
- What if failure was more rewarding than success?
|
||||
- What if players controlled the antagonist instead?
|
||||
- What if the game played itself when no one was watching?
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Cross-Genre Fusion**
|
||||
[[LLM: Help user combine unexpected game genres and mechanics to create unique experiences.]]
|
||||
- "How might [genre A] mechanics work in [genre B]?"
|
||||
- Puzzle mechanics in action games
|
||||
- Dating sim elements in strategy games
|
||||
- Horror elements in racing games
|
||||
- Educational content in roguelike structure
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Player Motivation Reversal**
|
||||
[[LLM: Flip traditional player motivations to reveal new gameplay possibilities.]]
|
||||
- What if losing was the goal?
|
||||
- What if cooperation was forced in competitive games?
|
||||
- What if players had to help their enemies?
|
||||
- What if progress meant giving up abilities?
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Core Loop Deconstruction**
|
||||
[[LLM: Break down successful games to fundamental mechanics and rebuild differently.]]
|
||||
- What are the essential 3 actions in this game type?
|
||||
- How could we make each action more interesting?
|
||||
- What if we changed the order of these actions?
|
||||
- What if players could skip or automate certain actions?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Mechanic Innovation Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **SCAMPER for Game Mechanics**
|
||||
[[LLM: Guide through each SCAMPER prompt specifically for game design.]]
|
||||
- **S** = Substitute: What mechanics can be substituted? (walking → flying → swimming)
|
||||
- **C** = Combine: What systems can be merged? (inventory + character growth)
|
||||
- **A** = Adapt: What mechanics from other media? (books, movies, sports)
|
||||
- **M** = Modify/Magnify: What can be exaggerated? (super speed, massive scale)
|
||||
- **P** = Put to other uses: What else could this mechanic do? (jumping → attacking)
|
||||
- **E** = Eliminate: What can be removed? (UI, tutorials, fail states)
|
||||
- **R** = Reverse/Rearrange: What sequence changes? (end-to-start, simultaneous)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Player Agency Spectrum**
|
||||
[[LLM: Explore different levels of player control and agency across game systems.]]
|
||||
- Full Control: Direct character movement, combat, building
|
||||
- Indirect Control: Setting rules, giving commands, environmental changes
|
||||
- Influence Only: Suggestions, preferences, emotional reactions
|
||||
- No Control: Observation, interpretation, passive experience
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Temporal Game Design**
|
||||
[[LLM: Explore how time affects gameplay and player experience.]]
|
||||
- Real-time vs. turn-based mechanics
|
||||
- Time travel and manipulation
|
||||
- Persistent vs. session-based progress
|
||||
- Asynchronous multiplayer timing
|
||||
- Seasonal and event-based content
|
||||
|
||||
#### Player Experience Ideation
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Emotion-First Design**
|
||||
[[LLM: Start with target emotions and work backward to mechanics that create them.]]
|
||||
- Target Emotion: Wonder → Mechanics: Discovery, mystery, scale
|
||||
- Target Emotion: Triumph → Mechanics: Challenge, skill growth, recognition
|
||||
- Target Emotion: Connection → Mechanics: Cooperation, shared goals, communication
|
||||
- Target Emotion: Flow → Mechanics: Clear feedback, progressive difficulty
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Player Archetype Brainstorming**
|
||||
[[LLM: Design for different player types and motivations.]]
|
||||
- Achievers: Progression, completion, mastery
|
||||
- Explorers: Discovery, secrets, world-building
|
||||
- Socializers: Interaction, cooperation, community
|
||||
- Killers: Competition, dominance, conflict
|
||||
- Creators: Building, customization, expression
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Accessibility-First Innovation**
|
||||
[[LLM: Generate ideas that make games more accessible while creating new gameplay.]]
|
||||
- Visual impairment considerations leading to audio-focused mechanics
|
||||
- Motor accessibility inspiring one-handed or simplified controls
|
||||
- Cognitive accessibility driving clear feedback and pacing
|
||||
- Economic accessibility creating free-to-play innovations
|
||||
|
||||
#### Narrative and World Building
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Environmental Storytelling**
|
||||
[[LLM: Brainstorm ways the game world itself tells stories without explicit narrative.]]
|
||||
- How does the environment show history?
|
||||
- What do interactive objects reveal about characters?
|
||||
- How can level design communicate mood?
|
||||
- What stories do systems and mechanics tell?
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Player-Generated Narrative**
|
||||
[[LLM: Explore ways players create their own stories through gameplay.]]
|
||||
- Emergent storytelling through player choices
|
||||
- Procedural narrative generation
|
||||
- Player-to-player story sharing
|
||||
- Community-driven world events
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Genre Expectation Subversion**
|
||||
[[LLM: Identify and deliberately subvert player expectations within genres.]]
|
||||
- Fantasy RPG where magic is mundane
|
||||
- Horror game where monsters are friendly
|
||||
- Racing game where going slow is optimal
|
||||
- Puzzle game where there are multiple correct answers
|
||||
|
||||
#### Technical Innovation Inspiration
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Platform-Specific Design**
|
||||
[[LLM: Generate ideas that leverage unique platform capabilities.]]
|
||||
- Mobile: GPS, accelerometer, camera, always-connected
|
||||
- Web: URLs, tabs, social sharing, real-time collaboration
|
||||
- Console: Controllers, TV viewing, couch co-op
|
||||
- VR/AR: Physical movement, spatial interaction, presence
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Constraint-Based Creativity**
|
||||
[[LLM: Use technical or design constraints as creative catalysts.]]
|
||||
- One-button games
|
||||
- Games without graphics
|
||||
- Games that play in notification bars
|
||||
- Games using only system sounds
|
||||
- Games with intentionally bad graphics
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Game-Specific Technique Selection
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: Help user select appropriate techniques based on their specific game design needs.]]
|
||||
|
||||
**For Initial Game Concepts:**
|
||||
|
||||
- What If Game Scenarios
|
||||
- Cross-Genre Fusion
|
||||
- Emotion-First Design
|
||||
|
||||
**For Stuck/Blocked Creativity:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Player Motivation Reversal
|
||||
- Constraint-Based Creativity
|
||||
- Genre Expectation Subversion
|
||||
|
||||
**For Mechanic Development:**
|
||||
|
||||
- SCAMPER for Game Mechanics
|
||||
- Core Loop Deconstruction
|
||||
- Player Agency Spectrum
|
||||
|
||||
**For Player Experience:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Player Archetype Brainstorming
|
||||
- Emotion-First Design
|
||||
- Accessibility-First Innovation
|
||||
|
||||
**For World Building:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Environmental Storytelling
|
||||
- Player-Generated Narrative
|
||||
- Platform-Specific Design
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Game Design Session Flow
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: Guide the brainstorming session with appropriate pacing for game design exploration.]]
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Inspiration Phase** (10-15 min)
|
||||
- Reference existing games and mechanics
|
||||
- Explore player experiences and emotions
|
||||
- Gather visual and thematic inspiration
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Divergent Exploration** (25-35 min)
|
||||
- Generate many game concepts or mechanics
|
||||
- Use expansion and fusion techniques
|
||||
- Encourage wild and impossible ideas
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Player-Centered Filtering** (15-20 min)
|
||||
- Consider target audience reactions
|
||||
- Evaluate emotional impact and engagement
|
||||
- Group ideas by player experience goals
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Feasibility and Synthesis** (15-20 min)
|
||||
- Assess technical and design feasibility
|
||||
- Combine complementary ideas
|
||||
- Develop most promising concepts
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Game Design Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: Present brainstorming results in a format useful for game development.]]
|
||||
|
||||
**Session Summary:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Techniques used and focus areas
|
||||
- Total concepts/mechanics generated
|
||||
- Key themes and patterns identified
|
||||
|
||||
**Game Concept Categories:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Core Game Ideas** - Complete game concepts ready for prototyping
|
||||
2. **Mechanic Innovations** - Specific gameplay mechanics to explore
|
||||
3. **Player Experience Goals** - Emotional and engagement targets
|
||||
4. **Technical Experiments** - Platform or technology-focused concepts
|
||||
5. **Long-term Vision** - Ambitious ideas for future development
|
||||
|
||||
**Development Readiness:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Prototype-Ready Ideas:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Ideas that can be tested immediately
|
||||
- Minimum viable implementations
|
||||
- Quick validation approaches
|
||||
|
||||
**Research-Required Ideas:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Concepts needing technical investigation
|
||||
- Player testing and market research needs
|
||||
- Competitive analysis requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Future Innovation Pipeline:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Ideas requiring significant development
|
||||
- Technology-dependent concepts
|
||||
- Market timing considerations
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Steps:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Which concepts to prototype first
|
||||
- Recommended research areas
|
||||
- Suggested playtesting approaches
|
||||
- Documentation and GDD planning
|
||||
|
||||
## Game Design Specific Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### Platform and Audience Awareness
|
||||
|
||||
- Always consider target platform limitations and advantages
|
||||
- Keep target audience preferences and expectations in mind
|
||||
- Balance innovation with familiar game design patterns
|
||||
- Consider monetization and business model implications
|
||||
|
||||
### Rapid Prototyping Mindset
|
||||
|
||||
- Focus on ideas that can be quickly tested
|
||||
- Emphasize core mechanics over complex features
|
||||
- Design for iteration and player feedback
|
||||
- Consider digital and paper prototyping approaches
|
||||
|
||||
### Player Psychology Integration
|
||||
|
||||
- Understand motivation and engagement drivers
|
||||
- Consider learning curves and skill development
|
||||
- Design for different play session lengths
|
||||
- Balance challenge and reward appropriately
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Feasibility
|
||||
|
||||
- Keep development resources and timeline in mind
|
||||
- Consider art and audio asset requirements
|
||||
- Think about performance and optimization needs
|
||||
- Plan for testing and debugging complexity
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Notes for Game Design Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
- Encourage "impossible" ideas - constraints can be added later
|
||||
- Build on game mechanics that have proven engagement
|
||||
- Consider how ideas scale from prototype to full game
|
||||
- Document player experience goals alongside mechanics
|
||||
- Think about community and social aspects of gameplay
|
||||
- Consider accessibility and inclusivity from the start
|
||||
- Balance innovation with market viability
|
||||
- Plan for iteration based on player feedback
|
||||
368
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/game-risk-profile.md
Normal file
368
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/game-risk-profile.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,368 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# game-risk-profile
|
||||
|
||||
Generate a comprehensive risk assessment matrix for a Godot game story implementation using probability × impact analysis focused on game development challenges.
|
||||
|
||||
## Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
required:
|
||||
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: 'docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md'
|
||||
- story_title: '{title}' # If missing, derive from story file H1
|
||||
- story_slug: '{slug}' # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Identify, assess, and prioritize risks in Godot game feature implementation. Provide risk mitigation strategies and playtesting focus areas based on game development risk levels.
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Assessment Framework
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk Categories
|
||||
|
||||
**Category Prefixes:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `TECH`: Technical/Engine Risks
|
||||
- `PERF`: Performance/Optimization Risks
|
||||
- `GAME`: Gameplay/Mechanics Risks
|
||||
- `ART`: Art/Asset Pipeline Risks
|
||||
- `PLAT`: Platform/Deployment Risks
|
||||
- `PLAY`: Player Experience Risks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Technical/Engine Risks (TECH)**
|
||||
- Godot version compatibility issues
|
||||
- GDScript/C# integration problems
|
||||
- Node tree architecture complexity
|
||||
- Signal connection failures
|
||||
- Plugin/addon conflicts
|
||||
- Memory leak in scene transitions
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Performance/Optimization Risks (PERF)**
|
||||
- Frame rate drops below 60 FPS
|
||||
- Draw call bottlenecks
|
||||
- Physics engine slowdowns
|
||||
- Particle system overload
|
||||
- Texture memory exhaustion
|
||||
- Shader compilation spikes
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Gameplay/Mechanics Risks (GAME)**
|
||||
- Game balance issues
|
||||
- Control responsiveness problems
|
||||
- Collision detection failures
|
||||
- AI behavior bugs
|
||||
- Progression breaking bugs
|
||||
- Save/load system corruption
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Art/Asset Pipeline Risks (ART)**
|
||||
- Asset import failures
|
||||
- Texture atlas overflow
|
||||
- Animation sync issues
|
||||
- Audio streaming problems
|
||||
- Font rendering issues
|
||||
- Sprite batching failures
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Platform/Deployment Risks (PLAT)**
|
||||
- Export template issues
|
||||
- Platform-specific bugs
|
||||
- Mobile performance degradation
|
||||
- Web build compatibility
|
||||
- Console certification failures
|
||||
- Steam/itch.io integration problems
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Player Experience Risks (PLAY)**
|
||||
- Tutorial unclear or broken
|
||||
- Difficulty curve too steep/shallow
|
||||
- Multiplayer desync issues
|
||||
- Achievements not triggering
|
||||
- Localization text overflow
|
||||
- Accessibility features missing
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Analysis Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Risk Identification
|
||||
|
||||
For each category, identify specific risks:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
risk:
|
||||
id: 'PERF-001' # Use prefixes: TECH, PERF, GAME, ART, PLAT, PLAY
|
||||
category: performance
|
||||
title: 'Particle system causing frame drops in boss battle'
|
||||
description: 'Multiple particle emitters active during boss fight drops FPS below 30'
|
||||
affected_components:
|
||||
- 'BossArena.tscn'
|
||||
- 'ParticleManager.gd'
|
||||
- 'BossAttackEffects'
|
||||
detection_method: 'Profiler showed 80% GPU usage on particles'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluate each risk using probability × impact:
|
||||
|
||||
**Probability Levels:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `High (3)`: Likely to occur (>70% chance)
|
||||
- `Medium (2)`: Possible occurrence (30-70% chance)
|
||||
- `Low (1)`: Unlikely to occur (<30% chance)
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact Levels:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `High (3)`: Severe consequences (game unplayable, save corruption, platform rejection)
|
||||
- `Medium (2)`: Moderate consequences (noticeable lag, minor bugs, progression issues)
|
||||
- `Low (1)`: Minor consequences (visual glitches, UI issues, quality of life problems)
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk Score = Probability × Impact
|
||||
|
||||
- 9: Critical Risk (Red)
|
||||
- 6: High Risk (Orange)
|
||||
- 4: Medium Risk (Yellow)
|
||||
- 2-3: Low Risk (Green)
|
||||
- 1: Minimal Risk (Blue)
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Risk Prioritization
|
||||
|
||||
Create risk matrix:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Risk Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk ID | Description | Probability | Impact | Score | Priority |
|
||||
| -------- | ---------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ----- | -------- |
|
||||
| GAME-001 | Boss fight progression block | High (3) | High (3) | 9 | Critical |
|
||||
| PERF-001 | Particle FPS drops | Medium (2) | Medium (2) | 4 | Medium |
|
||||
| PLAT-001 | Mobile export crashes | Low (1) | High (3) | 3 | Low |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Risk Mitigation Strategies
|
||||
|
||||
For each identified risk, provide mitigation:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
mitigation:
|
||||
risk_id: 'PERF-001'
|
||||
strategy: 'preventive' # preventive|detective|corrective
|
||||
actions:
|
||||
- 'Implement particle pooling system'
|
||||
- 'Add LOD (Level of Detail) for particle effects'
|
||||
- 'Use GPU particles instead of CPU particles'
|
||||
- 'Limit max particle count per emitter'
|
||||
testing_requirements:
|
||||
- 'Performance profiling on min spec hardware'
|
||||
- 'Stress test with all effects active'
|
||||
- 'FPS monitoring during boss encounters'
|
||||
residual_risk: 'Low - May still drop to 45 FPS on very low-end devices'
|
||||
owner: 'game-dev'
|
||||
timeline: 'Before beta release'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 1: Gate YAML Block
|
||||
|
||||
Generate for pasting into gate file under `risk_summary`:
|
||||
|
||||
**Output rules:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Only include assessed risks; do not emit placeholders
|
||||
- Sort risks by score (desc) when emitting highest and any tabular lists
|
||||
- If no risks: totals all zeros, omit highest, keep recommendations arrays empty
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
# risk_summary (paste into gate file):
|
||||
risk_summary:
|
||||
totals:
|
||||
critical: X # score 9
|
||||
high: Y # score 6
|
||||
medium: Z # score 4
|
||||
low: W # score 2-3
|
||||
highest:
|
||||
id: GAME-001
|
||||
score: 9
|
||||
title: 'Boss fight progression blocker'
|
||||
recommendations:
|
||||
must_fix:
|
||||
- 'Fix collision detection in boss arena'
|
||||
monitor:
|
||||
- 'Track FPS metrics during gameplay'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 2: Markdown Report
|
||||
|
||||
**Save to:** `qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Risk Profile: Story {epic}.{story}
|
||||
|
||||
Date: {date}
|
||||
Reviewer: Linus (Test Architect)
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Total Risks Identified: X
|
||||
- Critical Risks: Y
|
||||
- High Risks: Z
|
||||
- Risk Score: XX/100 (calculated)
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Risks Requiring Immediate Attention
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. [ID]: Risk Title
|
||||
|
||||
**Score: 9 (Critical)**
|
||||
**Probability**: High - Detailed reasoning
|
||||
**Impact**: High - Potential consequences
|
||||
**Mitigation**:
|
||||
|
||||
- Immediate action required
|
||||
- Specific steps to take
|
||||
**Testing Focus**: Specific test scenarios needed
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Distribution
|
||||
|
||||
### By Category
|
||||
|
||||
- Technical/Engine: X risks (Y critical)
|
||||
- Performance: X risks (Y critical)
|
||||
- Gameplay: X risks (Y critical)
|
||||
- Art/Assets: X risks (Y critical)
|
||||
- Platform: X risks (Y critical)
|
||||
- Player Experience: X risks (Y critical)
|
||||
|
||||
### By Component
|
||||
|
||||
- Game Scenes: X risks
|
||||
- Player Controller: X risks
|
||||
- Enemy AI: X risks
|
||||
- UI/Menus: X risks
|
||||
- Audio System: X risks
|
||||
- Save System: X risks
|
||||
|
||||
## Detailed Risk Register
|
||||
|
||||
[Full table of all risks with scores and mitigations]
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk-Based Testing Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Priority 1: Critical Risk Tests
|
||||
|
||||
- Playtesting scenarios for game-breaking bugs
|
||||
- Performance testing on target platforms
|
||||
- Save/load integrity testing
|
||||
- Multiplayer stress testing (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
### Priority 2: High Risk Tests
|
||||
|
||||
- Integration test scenarios
|
||||
- Edge case coverage
|
||||
|
||||
### Priority 3: Medium/Low Risk Tests
|
||||
|
||||
- Standard functional tests
|
||||
- Regression test suite
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
### Must Fix Before Production
|
||||
|
||||
- All critical risks (score 9)
|
||||
- High risks affecting security/data
|
||||
|
||||
### Can Deploy with Mitigation
|
||||
|
||||
- Medium risks with compensating controls
|
||||
- Low risks with monitoring in place
|
||||
|
||||
### Accepted Risks
|
||||
|
||||
- Document any risks team accepts
|
||||
- Include sign-off from appropriate authority
|
||||
|
||||
## Monitoring Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Post-release monitoring for:
|
||||
|
||||
- Frame rate metrics and performance stats
|
||||
- Crash reports and error logs
|
||||
- Player progression analytics
|
||||
- Achievement completion rates
|
||||
- Player retention metrics
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Review Triggers
|
||||
|
||||
Review and update risk profile when:
|
||||
|
||||
- Major gameplay mechanics added
|
||||
- New platforms targeted
|
||||
- Godot engine version upgraded
|
||||
- Performance issues reported by playtesters
|
||||
- Art style or asset pipeline changes
|
||||
- Multiplayer features added
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Scoring Algorithm
|
||||
|
||||
Calculate overall story risk score:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Base Score = 100
|
||||
For each risk:
|
||||
- Critical (9): Deduct 20 points
|
||||
- High (6): Deduct 10 points
|
||||
- Medium (4): Deduct 5 points
|
||||
- Low (2-3): Deduct 2 points
|
||||
|
||||
Minimum score = 0 (extremely risky)
|
||||
Maximum score = 100 (minimal risk)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk-Based Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
Based on risk profile, recommend:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Testing Priority**
|
||||
- Which tests to run first
|
||||
- Additional test types needed
|
||||
- Test environment requirements
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Development Focus**
|
||||
- Code review emphasis areas
|
||||
- Additional validation needed
|
||||
- Security controls to implement
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Deployment Strategy**
|
||||
- Phased rollout for high-risk changes
|
||||
- Feature flags for risky features
|
||||
- Rollback procedures
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Monitoring Setup**
|
||||
- Metrics to track
|
||||
- Alerts to configure
|
||||
- Dashboard requirements
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with Quality Gates
|
||||
|
||||
**Deterministic gate mapping:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Any risk with score ≥ 9 → Gate = FAIL (unless waived)
|
||||
- Else if any score ≥ 6 → Gate = CONCERNS
|
||||
- Else → Gate = PASS
|
||||
- Unmitigated risks → Document in gate
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 3: Story Hook Line
|
||||
|
||||
**Print this line for review task to quote:**
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Risk profile: qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- Identify risks early and systematically
|
||||
- Use consistent probability × impact scoring
|
||||
- Provide actionable mitigation strategies
|
||||
- Link risks to specific test requirements
|
||||
- Track residual risk after mitigation
|
||||
- Update risk profile as story evolves
|
||||
219
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/game-test-design.md
Normal file
219
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/game-test-design.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# game-test-design
|
||||
|
||||
Create comprehensive Godot game test scenarios using GUT (GDScript) or GoDotTest/GodotTestDriver (C#) with appropriate test level recommendations for game feature implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
required:
|
||||
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: '{devStoryLocation}/{epic}.{story}.*.md' # Path from core-config.yaml
|
||||
- story_title: '{title}' # If missing, derive from story file H1
|
||||
- story_slug: '{slug}' # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Design a complete Godot game test strategy that identifies what to test, at which level (unit/integration/playtesting), and which testing framework to use (GUT for GDScript, GoDotTest/GodotTestDriver for C#). This ensures efficient test coverage for game mechanics, systems, and player experience while maintaining appropriate test boundaries.
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
data:
|
||||
- game-test-levels-framework.md # Unit/Integration/Playtesting decision criteria
|
||||
- game-test-priorities-matrix.md # P0/P1/P2/P3 classification for game features
|
||||
frameworks:
|
||||
gdscript:
|
||||
- GUT (Godot Unit Test) # Native GDScript testing framework
|
||||
csharp:
|
||||
- GoDotTest # xUnit-based testing for C#
|
||||
- GodotTestDriver # UI automation and integration testing
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Godot Testing Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
### GUT (Godot Unit Test) - GDScript
|
||||
|
||||
- **Best for**: Game logic, state machines, inventory systems, damage calculations
|
||||
- **Setup**: Install via AssetLib or GitHub
|
||||
- **Test location**: `res://tests/unit/`
|
||||
- **Example**: Testing player health system, weapon damage modifiers
|
||||
|
||||
### GoDotTest - C#
|
||||
|
||||
- **Best for**: C# game systems, complex algorithms, data structures
|
||||
- **Setup**: NuGet package with xUnit integration
|
||||
- **Test location**: `tests/` directory in project root
|
||||
- **Example**: Testing procedural generation, AI decision trees
|
||||
|
||||
### GodotTestDriver - C#
|
||||
|
||||
- **Best for**: UI automation, integration testing, scene transitions
|
||||
- **Setup**: NuGet package for UI testing
|
||||
- **Test location**: `tests/integration/`
|
||||
- **Example**: Testing menu navigation, save/load flows, multiplayer lobbies
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Analyze Story Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Break down each acceptance criterion into testable game scenarios. For each AC:
|
||||
|
||||
- Identify the core game mechanic or system to test
|
||||
- Determine input variations (controls, player actions)
|
||||
- Consider edge cases (collision boundaries, resource limits)
|
||||
- Note platform-specific behaviors
|
||||
- Identify performance requirements (FPS, memory)
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Apply Game Test Level Framework
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference:** Load `game-test-levels-framework.md` for detailed criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Quick rules for Godot:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Unit Tests (GUT/GoDotTest)**: Game logic, damage calculations, inventory systems, state machines
|
||||
- **Integration Tests (GUT/GodotTestDriver)**: Scene interactions, signal connections, save/load, physics
|
||||
- **Playtesting**: Full gameplay loops, difficulty balance, fun factor, performance on target hardware
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Assign Priorities
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference:** Load `test-priorities-matrix.md` for classification
|
||||
|
||||
Quick priority assignment for games:
|
||||
|
||||
- **P0**: Game-breaking bugs, save corruption, core mechanics, progression blockers
|
||||
- **P1**: Combat systems, player movement, UI responsiveness, multiplayer sync
|
||||
- **P2**: Visual effects, audio, achievements, secondary mechanics
|
||||
- **P3**: Cosmetics, easter eggs, optional content
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Design Test Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
For each identified test need, create:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
test_scenario:
|
||||
id: '{epic}.{story}-{LEVEL}-{SEQ}'
|
||||
requirement: 'AC reference'
|
||||
priority: P0|P1|P2|P3
|
||||
level: unit|integration|playtest
|
||||
framework: GUT|GoDotTest|GodotTestDriver|Manual
|
||||
description: 'What game feature/mechanic is being tested'
|
||||
justification: 'Why this level and framework were chosen'
|
||||
test_scene: 'res://tests/{TestSceneName}.tscn' # For automated tests
|
||||
mitigates_risks: ['PERF-001', 'GAME-002'] # From risk profile
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Validate Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
Ensure:
|
||||
|
||||
- Every AC has at least one test
|
||||
- No duplicate coverage across levels
|
||||
- Critical paths have multiple levels
|
||||
- Risk mitigations are addressed
|
||||
|
||||
## Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 1: Test Design Document
|
||||
|
||||
**Save to:** `qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Test Design: Story {epic}.{story}
|
||||
|
||||
Date: {date}
|
||||
Designer: Quinn (Game Test Architect)
|
||||
|
||||
## Game Test Strategy Overview
|
||||
|
||||
- Total test scenarios: X
|
||||
- Unit tests (GUT/GoDotTest): Y (A%)
|
||||
- Integration tests (GodotTestDriver): Z (B%)
|
||||
- Playtesting scenarios: W (C%)
|
||||
- Framework distribution: GUT: X%, GoDotTest: Y%, Manual: Z%
|
||||
- Priority distribution: P0: X, P1: Y, P2: Z
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Scenarios by Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
### AC1: {description}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Level | Framework | Priority | Test | Justification |
|
||||
| ------------ | ----------- | --------- | -------- | ----------------------------- | ---------------------------- |
|
||||
| 1.3-UNIT-001 | Unit | GUT | P0 | Player damage calculation | Core combat logic |
|
||||
| 1.3-INT-001 | Integration | GoDotTest | P0 | Enemy AI pathfinding | NavigationAgent2D behavior |
|
||||
| 1.3-PLAY-001 | Playtest | Manual | P1 | Boss fight difficulty balance | Player experience validation |
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue for all ACs...]
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
[Map test scenarios to identified risks if risk profile exists]
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Execution Order
|
||||
|
||||
1. P0 Unit tests (fail fast)
|
||||
2. P0 Integration tests
|
||||
3. P0 E2E tests
|
||||
4. P1 tests in order
|
||||
5. P2+ as time permits
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 2: Gate YAML Block
|
||||
|
||||
Generate for inclusion in quality gate:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
test_design:
|
||||
scenarios_total: X
|
||||
by_level:
|
||||
unit: Y
|
||||
integration: Z
|
||||
playtest: W
|
||||
by_framework:
|
||||
gut: A
|
||||
godottest: B
|
||||
testdriver: C
|
||||
manual: D
|
||||
by_priority:
|
||||
p0: A
|
||||
p1: B
|
||||
p2: C
|
||||
coverage_gaps: [] # List any ACs without tests
|
||||
performance_tests: [] # FPS, memory, load time tests
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Output 3: Trace References
|
||||
|
||||
Print for use by trace-requirements task:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Test design matrix: qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md
|
||||
P0 tests identified: {count}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Game Testing Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing, verify:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every AC has test coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Test frameworks match language (GUT for GDScript, GoDotTest for C#)
|
||||
- [ ] Physics and collision tests use proper test scenes
|
||||
- [ ] Performance tests target minimum spec hardware
|
||||
- [ ] Multiplayer tests cover desync scenarios
|
||||
- [ ] Save/load tests verify data integrity
|
||||
- [ ] Platform-specific tests for each export target
|
||||
- [ ] Test scenes are properly organized in res://tests/
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Game Testing Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- **Shift left**: Test game logic early with GUT/GoDotTest before full integration
|
||||
- **Performance first**: Profile early and often, test on min spec
|
||||
- **Player experience**: Balance automated tests with human playtesting
|
||||
- **Framework selection**: GUT for GDScript game logic, GoDotTest for C# systems, GodotTestDriver for UI
|
||||
- **Scene isolation**: Test components in minimal scenes to reduce dependencies
|
||||
- **Fast feedback**: Unit tests in CI/CD, integration tests nightly, playtests per sprint
|
||||
- **Platform coverage**: Test exports on all target platforms regularly
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
# Create AI Frontend Prompt Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
To generate a masterful, comprehensive, and optimized prompt that can be used with any AI-driven frontend development tool (e.g., Vercel v0, Lovable.ai, or similar) to scaffold or generate significant portions of a frontend application.
|
||||
|
||||
## Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
- Completed UI/UX Specification (`front-end-spec.md`)
|
||||
- Completed Frontend Architecture Document (`front-end-architecture`) or a full stack combined architecture such as `architecture.md`
|
||||
- Main System Architecture Document (`architecture` - for API contracts and tech stack to give further context)
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Activities & Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Core Prompting Principles
|
||||
|
||||
Before generating the prompt, you must understand these core principles for interacting with a generative AI for code.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Be Explicit and Detailed**: The AI cannot read your mind. Provide as much detail and context as possible. Vague requests lead to generic or incorrect outputs.
|
||||
- **Iterate, Don't Expect Perfection**: Generating an entire complex application in one go is rare. The most effective method is to prompt for one component or one section at a time, then build upon the results.
|
||||
- **Provide Context First**: Always start by providing the AI with the necessary context, such as the tech stack, existing code snippets, and overall project goals.
|
||||
- **Mobile-First Approach**: Frame all UI generation requests with a mobile-first design mindset. Describe the mobile layout first, then provide separate instructions for how it should adapt for tablet and desktop.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. The Structured Prompting Framework
|
||||
|
||||
To ensure the highest quality output, you MUST structure every prompt using the following four-part framework.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **High-Level Goal**: Start with a clear, concise summary of the overall objective. This orients the AI on the primary task.
|
||||
- _Example: "Create a responsive user registration form with client-side validation and API integration."_
|
||||
2. **Detailed, Step-by-Step Instructions**: Provide a granular, numbered list of actions the AI should take. Break down complex tasks into smaller, sequential steps. This is the most critical part of the prompt.
|
||||
- _Example: "1. Create a new file named `RegistrationForm.js`. 2. Use React hooks for state management. 3. Add styled input fields for 'Name', 'Email', and 'Password'. 4. For the email field, ensure it is a valid email format. 5. On submission, call the API endpoint defined below."_
|
||||
3. **Code Examples, Data Structures & Constraints**: Include any relevant snippets of existing code, data structures, or API contracts. This gives the AI concrete examples to work with. Crucially, you must also state what _not_ to do.
|
||||
- _Example: "Use this API endpoint: `POST /api/register`. The expected JSON payload is `{ "name": "string", "email": "string", "password": "string" }`. Do NOT include a 'confirm password' field. Use Tailwind CSS for all styling."_
|
||||
4. **Define a Strict Scope**: Explicitly define the boundaries of the task. Tell the AI which files it can modify and, more importantly, which files to leave untouched to prevent unintended changes across the codebase.
|
||||
- _Example: "You should only create the `RegistrationForm.js` component and add it to the `pages/register.js` file. Do NOT alter the `Navbar.js` component or any other existing page or component."_
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Assembling the Master Prompt
|
||||
|
||||
You will now synthesize the inputs and the above principles into a final, comprehensive prompt.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Gather Foundational Context**:
|
||||
- Start the prompt with a preamble describing the overall project purpose, the full tech stack (e.g., Next.js, TypeScript, Tailwind CSS), and the primary UI component library being used.
|
||||
2. **Describe the Visuals**:
|
||||
- If the user has design files (Figma, etc.), instruct them to provide links or screenshots.
|
||||
- If not, describe the visual style: color palette, typography, spacing, and overall aesthetic (e.g., "minimalist", "corporate", "playful").
|
||||
3. **Build the Prompt using the Structured Framework**:
|
||||
- Follow the four-part framework from Section 2 to build out the core request, whether it's for a single component or a full page.
|
||||
4. **Present and Refine**:
|
||||
- Output the complete, generated prompt in a clear, copy-pasteable format (e.g., a large code block).
|
||||
- Explain the structure of the prompt and why certain information was included, referencing the principles above.
|
||||
- <important_note>Conclude by reminding the user that all AI-generated code will require careful human review, testing, and refinement to be considered production-ready.</important_note>
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# KB Mode Interaction Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Provide a user-friendly interface to the BMad knowledge base without overwhelming users with information upfront.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
When entering KB mode (\*kb-mode), follow these steps:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Welcome and Guide
|
||||
|
||||
Announce entering KB mode with a brief, friendly introduction.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Present Topic Areas
|
||||
|
||||
Offer a concise list of main topic areas the user might want to explore:
|
||||
|
||||
**What would you like to know more about?**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Setup & Installation** - Getting started with BMad
|
||||
2. **Workflows** - Choosing the right workflow for your project
|
||||
3. **Web vs IDE** - When to use each environment
|
||||
4. **Agents** - Understanding specialized agents and their roles
|
||||
5. **Documents** - PRDs, Architecture, Stories, and more
|
||||
6. **Agile Process** - How BMad implements Agile methodologies
|
||||
7. **Configuration** - Customizing BMad for your needs
|
||||
8. **Best Practices** - Tips for effective BMad usage
|
||||
|
||||
Or ask me about anything else related to BMad-Method!
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Respond Contextually
|
||||
|
||||
- Wait for user's specific question or topic selection
|
||||
- Provide focused, relevant information from the knowledge base
|
||||
- Offer to dive deeper or explore related topics
|
||||
- Keep responses concise unless user asks for detailed explanations
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Interactive Exploration
|
||||
|
||||
- After answering, suggest related topics they might find helpful
|
||||
- Maintain conversational flow rather than data dumping
|
||||
- Use examples when appropriate
|
||||
- Reference specific documentation sections when relevant
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Exit Gracefully
|
||||
|
||||
When user is done or wants to exit KB mode:
|
||||
|
||||
- Summarize key points discussed if helpful
|
||||
- Remind them they can return to KB mode anytime with \*kb-mode
|
||||
- Suggest next steps based on what was discussed
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Interaction
|
||||
|
||||
**User**: \*kb-mode
|
||||
|
||||
**Assistant**: I've entered KB mode and have access to the full BMad knowledge base. I can help you with detailed information about any aspect of BMad-Method.
|
||||
|
||||
**What would you like to know more about?**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Setup & Installation** - Getting started with BMad
|
||||
2. **Workflows** - Choosing the right workflow for your project
|
||||
3. **Web vs IDE** - When to use each environment
|
||||
4. **Agents** - Understanding specialized agents and their roles
|
||||
5. **Documents** - PRDs, Architecture, Stories, and more
|
||||
6. **Agile Process** - How BMad implements Agile methodologies
|
||||
7. **Configuration** - Customizing BMad for your needs
|
||||
8. **Best Practices** - Tips for effective BMad usage
|
||||
|
||||
Or ask me about anything else related to BMad-Method!
|
||||
|
||||
**User**: Tell me about workflows
|
||||
|
||||
**Assistant**: [Provides focused information about workflows from the KB, then offers to explore specific workflow types or related topics]
|
||||
364
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/review-game-story.md
Normal file
364
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/review-game-story.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,364 @@
|
||||
# review-game-story
|
||||
|
||||
Perform a comprehensive Godot game story review with quality gate decision, focusing on TDD compliance, 60+ FPS performance validation, and GDScript/C# language strategy. This adaptive, risk-aware review creates both a story update and a detailed gate file.
|
||||
|
||||
## Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
required:
|
||||
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
|
||||
- story_path: '{devStoryLocation}/{epic}.{story}.*.md' # Path from core-config.yaml
|
||||
- story_title: '{title}' # If missing, derive from story file H1
|
||||
- story_slug: '{slug}' # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
- Story status must be "Review"
|
||||
- Developer has completed all tasks and updated the File List
|
||||
- All GUT (GDScript) and GoDotTest (C#) tests are passing
|
||||
- Performance profiler shows 60+ FPS maintained
|
||||
- TDD cycle (Red-Green-Refactor) was followed
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Process - Adaptive Test Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Risk Assessment (Determines Review Depth)
|
||||
|
||||
**Auto-escalate to deep review when:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Performance drops below 60 FPS
|
||||
- No TDD tests written (GUT/GoDotTest)
|
||||
- Language strategy violated (wrong GDScript/C# choice)
|
||||
- Object pooling missing for spawned entities
|
||||
- Diff > 500 lines
|
||||
- Previous gate was FAIL/CONCERNS
|
||||
- Story has > 5 acceptance criteria
|
||||
- Signal connections not properly cleaned up
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Comprehensive Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**A. Requirements Traceability**
|
||||
|
||||
- Map each acceptance criteria to GUT/GoDotTest tests
|
||||
- Verify TDD was followed (tests written first)
|
||||
- Identify coverage gaps (target 80% minimum)
|
||||
- Verify all Godot nodes have corresponding test cases
|
||||
- Check signal emission tests exist
|
||||
|
||||
**B. Code Quality Review**
|
||||
|
||||
- Node architecture and scene composition
|
||||
- GDScript static typing enforcement (10-20% perf gain)
|
||||
- C# optimization patterns (no LINQ, no allocations)
|
||||
- Signal connection patterns
|
||||
- Object pooling implementation
|
||||
- Resource preloading vs lazy loading
|
||||
- Godot best practices adherence
|
||||
- Performance profiler validation (60+ FPS)
|
||||
|
||||
**C. Test Architecture Assessment**
|
||||
|
||||
- GUT test coverage for GDScript components
|
||||
- GoDotTest coverage for C# components
|
||||
- TDD compliance (Red-Green-Refactor cycle)
|
||||
- Scene testing with test doubles
|
||||
- Signal testing patterns
|
||||
- Node mocking appropriateness
|
||||
- Edge case and error scenario coverage
|
||||
- Test execution performance impact
|
||||
|
||||
**D. Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)**
|
||||
|
||||
- Performance: 60+ FPS maintained, frame time <16.67ms
|
||||
- Memory: Scene memory usage, object pooling
|
||||
- Draw Calls: Within platform budgets
|
||||
- Platform Compatibility: Export template validation
|
||||
- Input Latency: <50ms for player controls
|
||||
- Load Times: Scene transitions <3 seconds
|
||||
- Reliability: Signal cleanup, node lifecycle
|
||||
|
||||
**E. Godot Testability Evaluation**
|
||||
|
||||
- Node Testability: Can nodes be tested in isolation?
|
||||
- Signal Observability: Can signal emissions be verified?
|
||||
- Scene Testing: Can scenes be tested without full game?
|
||||
- Performance Testing: Can FPS be validated in tests?
|
||||
- Platform Testing: Export templates testable?
|
||||
|
||||
**F. Technical Debt Identification**
|
||||
|
||||
- Missing TDD tests (GUT/GoDotTest)
|
||||
- Dynamic typing in GDScript (performance debt)
|
||||
- Missing object pools for spawned entities
|
||||
- Unoptimized node trees
|
||||
- Signal connection leaks
|
||||
- Wrong language choice (GDScript vs C#)
|
||||
- Performance bottlenecks below 60 FPS
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Active Refactoring
|
||||
|
||||
- Add static typing to GDScript where missing
|
||||
- Optimize C# code (remove LINQ, allocations)
|
||||
- Implement object pooling for spawned entities
|
||||
- Run GUT/GoDotTest to ensure changes don't break
|
||||
- Profile to verify 60+ FPS maintained
|
||||
- Document all changes in QA Results section
|
||||
- Do NOT alter story content beyond QA Results section
|
||||
- Do NOT change story Status or File List
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Standards Compliance Check
|
||||
|
||||
- Verify adherence to Godot coding standards
|
||||
- Check static typing in all GDScript
|
||||
- Validate C# optimization patterns (no LINQ)
|
||||
- Verify TDD approach (tests written first)
|
||||
- Check node naming conventions
|
||||
- Validate signal naming patterns
|
||||
- Ensure 60+ FPS performance targets met
|
||||
- Verify language strategy decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Acceptance Criteria Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- Verify each AC is fully implemented
|
||||
- Check TDD tests exist for each AC
|
||||
- Validate performance within 60+ FPS
|
||||
- Verify object pooling where needed
|
||||
- Check platform export compatibility
|
||||
- Validate input handling across devices
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Documentation and Comments
|
||||
|
||||
- Verify GDScript documentation comments
|
||||
- Check C# XML documentation
|
||||
- Ensure export variables have tooltips
|
||||
- Document performance optimizations
|
||||
- Note language choice rationale
|
||||
- Document signal flow and connections
|
||||
|
||||
## Output 1: Update Story File - QA Results Section ONLY
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL**: You are ONLY authorized to update the "QA Results" section of the story file. DO NOT modify any other sections.
|
||||
|
||||
**QA Results Anchor Rule:**
|
||||
|
||||
- If `## QA Results` doesn't exist, append it at end of file
|
||||
- If it exists, append a new dated entry below existing entries
|
||||
- Never edit other sections
|
||||
|
||||
After review and any refactoring, append your results to the story file in the QA Results section:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## QA Results
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Date: [Date]
|
||||
|
||||
### Reviewed By: Linus (Godot Game Test Architect)
|
||||
|
||||
### Code Quality Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
[Overall assessment of implementation quality]
|
||||
|
||||
### Refactoring Performed
|
||||
|
||||
[List any refactoring you performed with explanations]
|
||||
|
||||
- **File**: [filename]
|
||||
- **Change**: [what was changed]
|
||||
- **Why**: [reason for change]
|
||||
- **How**: [how it improves the code]
|
||||
|
||||
### Compliance Check
|
||||
|
||||
- Godot Standards: [✓/✗] [notes if any]
|
||||
- TDD Compliance: [✓/✗] [GUT/GoDotTest coverage]
|
||||
- Performance (60+ FPS): [✓/✗] [profiler results]
|
||||
- Language Strategy: [✓/✗] [GDScript/C# choices]
|
||||
- Object Pooling: [✓/✗] [for spawned entities]
|
||||
- All ACs Met: [✓/✗] [notes if any]
|
||||
|
||||
### Improvements Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
[Check off items you handled yourself, leave unchecked for dev to address]
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] Added static typing to player controller (scripts/player_controller.gd)
|
||||
- [x] Implemented object pool for bullets (scripts/systems/bullet_pool.gd)
|
||||
- [x] Added missing GUT tests for signal emissions
|
||||
- [ ] Consider moving physics logic to C# for performance
|
||||
- [ ] Add performance benchmarks to test suite
|
||||
- [ ] Optimize draw calls in particle system
|
||||
|
||||
### Performance Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Frame Rate: [Current FPS] (Target: 60+)
|
||||
- Frame Time: [ms] (Target: <16.67ms)
|
||||
- Draw Calls: [count] (Budget: [platform specific])
|
||||
- Memory Usage: [MB] (Limit: [platform specific])
|
||||
- Object Pools: [Implemented/Missing]
|
||||
|
||||
### Language Strategy Review
|
||||
|
||||
- GDScript Components: [Appropriate/Should be C#]
|
||||
- C# Components: [Appropriate/Should be GDScript]
|
||||
- Static Typing: [Complete/Missing]
|
||||
- Interop Boundaries: [Minimized/Excessive]
|
||||
|
||||
### Files Modified During Review
|
||||
|
||||
[If you modified files, list them here - ask Dev to update File List]
|
||||
|
||||
### Gate Status
|
||||
|
||||
Gate: {STATUS} → docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml
|
||||
Risk profile: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md
|
||||
NFR assessment: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
|
||||
|
||||
# Note: Paths should reference core-config.yaml for custom configurations
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommended Status
|
||||
|
||||
[✓ Ready for Done] / [✗ Changes Required - See unchecked items above]
|
||||
(Story owner decides final status)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Output 2: Create Quality Gate File
|
||||
|
||||
**Template and Directory:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Render from `templates/qa-gate-tmpl.yaml`
|
||||
- Create `docs/qa/gates/` directory if missing (or configure in core-config.yaml)
|
||||
- Save to: `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
Gate file structure:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
schema: 1
|
||||
story: '{epic}.{story}'
|
||||
story_title: '{story title}'
|
||||
gate: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED
|
||||
status_reason: '1-2 sentence explanation of gate decision'
|
||||
reviewer: 'Linus (Godot Game Test Architect)'
|
||||
updated: '{ISO-8601 timestamp}'
|
||||
|
||||
top_issues: [] # Empty if no issues
|
||||
waiver: { active: false } # Set active: true only if WAIVED
|
||||
|
||||
# Extended fields (optional but recommended):
|
||||
quality_score: 0-100 # 100 - (20*FAILs) - (10*CONCERNS) or use technical-preferences.md weights
|
||||
expires: '{ISO-8601 timestamp}' # Typically 2 weeks from review
|
||||
|
||||
evidence:
|
||||
tests_reviewed: { count }
|
||||
risks_identified: { count }
|
||||
trace:
|
||||
ac_covered: [1, 2, 3] # AC numbers with test coverage
|
||||
ac_gaps: [4] # AC numbers lacking coverage
|
||||
|
||||
nfr_validation:
|
||||
performance:
|
||||
status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
|
||||
fps: '60+|<60'
|
||||
frame_time: 'ms value'
|
||||
notes: 'Profiler findings'
|
||||
tdd_compliance:
|
||||
status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
|
||||
gut_coverage: 'percentage'
|
||||
godottest_coverage: 'percentage'
|
||||
notes: 'Test-first validation'
|
||||
language_strategy:
|
||||
status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
|
||||
notes: 'GDScript/C# appropriateness'
|
||||
reliability:
|
||||
status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
|
||||
notes: 'Signal cleanup, node lifecycle'
|
||||
|
||||
recommendations:
|
||||
immediate: # Must fix before production
|
||||
- action: 'Fix FPS drops below 60'
|
||||
refs: ['scenes/game.tscn']
|
||||
- action: 'Add object pooling for particles'
|
||||
refs: ['scripts/particle_spawner.gd']
|
||||
future: # Can be addressed later
|
||||
- action: 'Consider C# for physics system'
|
||||
refs: ['scripts/physics_manager.gd']
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Gate Decision Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Deterministic rule (apply in order):**
|
||||
|
||||
If risk_summary exists, apply its thresholds first (≥9 → FAIL, ≥6 → CONCERNS), then NFR statuses, then top_issues severity.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Risk thresholds (if risk_summary present):**
|
||||
- If any risk score ≥ 9 → Gate = FAIL (unless waived)
|
||||
- Else if any score ≥ 6 → Gate = CONCERNS
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Test coverage gaps (if trace available):**
|
||||
- If any P0 test from test-design is missing → Gate = CONCERNS
|
||||
- If security/data-loss P0 test missing → Gate = FAIL
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Issue severity:**
|
||||
- If any `top_issues.severity == high` → Gate = FAIL (unless waived)
|
||||
- Else if any `severity == medium` → Gate = CONCERNS
|
||||
|
||||
4. **NFR statuses:**
|
||||
- If any NFR status is FAIL → Gate = FAIL
|
||||
- Else if any NFR status is CONCERNS → Gate = CONCERNS
|
||||
- Else → Gate = PASS
|
||||
|
||||
- WAIVED only when waiver.active: true with reason/approver
|
||||
|
||||
Detailed criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- **PASS**: All critical requirements met, no blocking issues
|
||||
- **CONCERNS**: Non-critical issues found, team should review
|
||||
- **FAIL**: Critical issues that should be addressed
|
||||
- **WAIVED**: Issues acknowledged but explicitly waived by team
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Score Calculation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
quality_score = 100 - (20 × number of FAILs) - (10 × number of CONCERNS)
|
||||
Bounded between 0 and 100
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If `technical-preferences.md` defines custom weights, use those instead.
|
||||
|
||||
### Suggested Owner Convention
|
||||
|
||||
For each issue in `top_issues`, include a `suggested_owner`:
|
||||
|
||||
- `dev`: Code changes needed
|
||||
- `sm`: Requirements clarification needed
|
||||
- `po`: Business decision needed
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- You are a Godot Game Test Architect ensuring 60+ FPS and TDD compliance
|
||||
- You enforce static typing in GDScript and optimization in C#
|
||||
- You have authority to add object pooling and optimize performance
|
||||
- Always validate with Godot profiler data
|
||||
- Focus on performance-based prioritization
|
||||
- Ensure GUT/GoDotTest coverage meets 80% target
|
||||
- Provide actionable Godot-specific recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
## Blocking Conditions
|
||||
|
||||
Stop the review and request clarification if:
|
||||
|
||||
- Performance drops below 60 FPS
|
||||
- No TDD tests (GUT/GoDotTest) exist
|
||||
- Story file is incomplete or missing critical sections
|
||||
- File List is empty or clearly incomplete
|
||||
- Language strategy violated without justification
|
||||
- Object pooling missing for frequently spawned entities
|
||||
- Critical node architecture issues that require discussion
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion
|
||||
|
||||
After review:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Update the QA Results section in the story file
|
||||
2. Create the gate file in `docs/qa/gates/`
|
||||
3. Recommend status: "Ready for Done" or "Changes Required" (owner decides)
|
||||
4. If files were modified, list them in QA Results and ask Dev to update File List
|
||||
5. Always provide constructive feedback and actionable recommendations
|
||||
187
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/shard-doc.md
Normal file
187
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/shard-doc.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
|
||||
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
||||
|
||||
# Document Sharding Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
- Split a large document into multiple smaller documents based on level 2 sections
|
||||
- Create a folder structure to organize the sharded documents
|
||||
- Maintain all content integrity including code blocks, diagrams, and markdown formatting
|
||||
|
||||
## Primary Method: Automatic with markdown-tree
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: First, check if markdownExploder is set to true in .bmad-godot-game-dev/config.yaml. If it is, attempt to run the command: `md-tree explode {input file} {output path}`.
|
||||
|
||||
If the command succeeds, inform the user that the document has been sharded successfully and STOP - do not proceed further.
|
||||
|
||||
If the command fails (especially with an error indicating the command is not found or not available), inform the user: "The markdownExploder setting is enabled but the md-tree command is not available. Please either:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Install @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser globally with: `npm install -g @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser`
|
||||
2. Or set markdownExploder to false in .bmad-godot-game-dev/config.yaml
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT: STOP HERE - do not proceed with manual sharding until one of the above actions is taken.**"
|
||||
|
||||
If markdownExploder is set to false, inform the user: "The markdownExploder setting is currently false. For better performance and reliability, you should:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Set markdownExploder to true in .bmad-godot-game-dev/config.yaml
|
||||
2. Install @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser globally with: `npm install -g @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser`
|
||||
|
||||
I will now proceed with the manual sharding process."
|
||||
|
||||
Then proceed with the manual method below ONLY if markdownExploder is false.]]
|
||||
|
||||
### Installation and Usage
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Install globally**:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npm install -g @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Use the explode command**:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# For PRD
|
||||
md-tree explode docs/prd.md docs/prd
|
||||
|
||||
# For Architecture
|
||||
md-tree explode docs/architecture.md docs/architecture
|
||||
|
||||
# For any document
|
||||
md-tree explode [source-document] [destination-folder]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **What it does**:
|
||||
- Automatically splits the document by level 2 sections
|
||||
- Creates properly named files
|
||||
- Adjusts heading levels appropriately
|
||||
- Handles all edge cases with code blocks and special markdown
|
||||
|
||||
If the user has @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser installed, use it and skip the manual process below.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Manual Method (if @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser is not available or user indicated manual method)
|
||||
|
||||
### Task Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. Identify Document and Target Location
|
||||
|
||||
- Determine which document to shard (user-provided path)
|
||||
- Create a new folder under `docs/` with the same name as the document (without extension)
|
||||
- Example: `docs/prd.md` → create folder `docs/prd/`
|
||||
|
||||
2. Parse and Extract Sections
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL AEGNT SHARDING RULES:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Read the entire document content
|
||||
2. Identify all level 2 sections (## headings)
|
||||
3. For each level 2 section:
|
||||
- Extract the section heading and ALL content until the next level 2 section
|
||||
- Include all subsections, code blocks, diagrams, lists, tables, etc.
|
||||
- Be extremely careful with:
|
||||
- Fenced code blocks (```) - ensure you capture the full block including closing backticks and account for potential misleading level 2's that are actually part of a fenced section example
|
||||
- Mermaid diagrams - preserve the complete diagram syntax
|
||||
- Nested markdown elements
|
||||
- Multi-line content that might contain ## inside code blocks
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL: Use proper parsing that understands markdown context. A ## inside a code block is NOT a section header.]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Create Individual Files
|
||||
|
||||
For each extracted section:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Generate filename**: Convert the section heading to lowercase-dash-case
|
||||
- Remove special characters
|
||||
- Replace spaces with dashes
|
||||
- Example: "## Tech Stack" → `tech-stack.md`
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Adjust heading levels**:
|
||||
- The level 2 heading becomes level 1 (# instead of ##) in the sharded new document
|
||||
- All subsection levels decrease by 1:
|
||||
|
||||
```txt
|
||||
- ### → ##
|
||||
- #### → ###
|
||||
- ##### → ####
|
||||
- etc.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Write content**: Save the adjusted content to the new file
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Create Index File
|
||||
|
||||
Create an `index.md` file in the sharded folder that:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Contains the original level 1 heading and any content before the first level 2 section
|
||||
2. Lists all the sharded files with links:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Original Document Title
|
||||
|
||||
[Original introduction content if any]
|
||||
|
||||
## Sections
|
||||
|
||||
- [Section Name 1](./section-name-1.md)
|
||||
- [Section Name 2](./section-name-2.md)
|
||||
- [Section Name 3](./section-name-3.md)
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Preserve Special Content
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Code blocks**: Must capture complete blocks including:
|
||||
|
||||
```language
|
||||
content
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Mermaid diagrams**: Preserve complete syntax:
|
||||
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
graph TD
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Tables**: Maintain proper markdown table formatting
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Lists**: Preserve indentation and nesting
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Inline code**: Preserve backticks
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Links and references**: Keep all markdown links intact
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Template markup**: If documents contain {{placeholders}} ,preserve exactly
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Validation
|
||||
|
||||
After sharding:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Verify all sections were extracted
|
||||
2. Check that no content was lost
|
||||
3. Ensure heading levels were properly adjusted
|
||||
4. Confirm all files were created successfully
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Report Results
|
||||
|
||||
Provide a summary:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Document sharded successfully:
|
||||
- Source: [original document path]
|
||||
- Destination: docs/[folder-name]/
|
||||
- Files created: [count]
|
||||
- Sections:
|
||||
- section-name-1.md: "Section Title 1"
|
||||
- section-name-2.md: "Section Title 2"
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Never modify the actual content, only adjust heading levels
|
||||
- Preserve ALL formatting, including whitespace where significant
|
||||
- Handle edge cases like sections with code blocks containing ## symbols
|
||||
- Ensure the sharding is reversible (could reconstruct the original from shards)
|
||||
208
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/validate-game-story.md
Normal file
208
expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/tasks/validate-game-story.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
|
||||
# Validate Game Story Task
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
To comprehensively validate a Godot game development story draft before implementation begins, ensuring it contains all necessary Godot-specific technical context (node architecture, GDScript/C# language strategy, 60+ FPS performance targets), TDD requirements (GUT/GoDotTest), and implementation details. This specialized validation prevents hallucinations, ensures Godot development readiness, and validates game-specific acceptance criteria and testing approaches.
|
||||
|
||||
## SEQUENTIAL Task Execution (Do not proceed until current Task is complete)
|
||||
|
||||
### 0. Load Core Configuration and Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
- Load `.bmad-godot-game-dev/config.yaml` from the project root
|
||||
- If the file does not exist, HALT and inform the user: "core-config.yaml not found. This file is required for story validation."
|
||||
- Extract key configurations: `devStoryLocation`, `gdd.*`, `gamearchitecture.*`, `workflow.*`
|
||||
- Identify and load the following inputs:
|
||||
- **Story file**: The drafted game story to validate (provided by user or discovered in `devStoryLocation`)
|
||||
- **Parent epic**: The epic containing this story's requirements from GDD
|
||||
- **Architecture documents**: Based on configuration (sharded or monolithic)
|
||||
- **Game story template**: `expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/templates/game-story-tmpl.yaml` for completeness validation
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Game Story Template Completeness Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- Load `expansion-packs/bmad-godot-game-dev/templates/game-story-tmpl.yaml` and extract all required sections
|
||||
- **Missing sections check**: Compare story sections against game story template sections to verify all Godot-specific sections are present:
|
||||
- Godot Technical Context
|
||||
- Node Architecture & Signal Flow
|
||||
- Scene (.tscn) & Resource (.tres) Requirements
|
||||
- Language Strategy (GDScript vs C#)
|
||||
- Performance Requirements (60+ FPS target)
|
||||
- Platform Export Settings
|
||||
- Integration Points
|
||||
- TDD Testing Strategy (GUT for GDScript, GoDotTest for C#)
|
||||
- **Placeholder validation**: Ensure no template placeholders remain unfilled (e.g., `{{EpicNum}}`, `{{StoryNum}}`, `{{GameMechanic}}`, `_TBD_`)
|
||||
- **Game-specific sections**: Verify presence of Godot development specific sections
|
||||
- **Structure compliance**: Verify story follows game story template structure and formatting
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Godot Project Structure and Resource Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Godot file paths clarity**: Are Godot-specific paths clearly specified (res://, scenes/, scripts/, resources/, etc.)?
|
||||
- **Plugin dependencies**: Are required GDExtensions or addons identified and documented?
|
||||
- **Scene structure relevance**: Is relevant node hierarchy and scene tree structure included?
|
||||
- **Scene organization**: Are scene instancing and inheritance patterns clearly specified?
|
||||
- **Resource pipeline**: Are texture imports, AnimationPlayer resources, and AudioStream assets properly planned?
|
||||
- **Directory structure**: Do new Godot resources follow project structure according to architecture docs?
|
||||
- **Custom Resource requirements**: Are Resource classes and export presets identified?
|
||||
- **Language compliance**: Are GDScript static typing and C# optimization patterns enforced?
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Godot Node Architecture Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Node class specifications**: Are custom node classes (extending Node2D, Control, etc.) sufficiently detailed?
|
||||
- **Node dependencies**: Are node relationships and signal connections clearly mapped?
|
||||
- **Godot lifecycle usage**: Are \_ready(), \_process(), \_physics_process() methods appropriately planned?
|
||||
- **Signal system integration**: Are signal emissions, connections, and custom signals specified?
|
||||
- **Export variable requirements**: Are @export variables and inspector settings clear?
|
||||
- **Node interfaces**: Are required node groups and inheritance patterns defined?
|
||||
- **Performance considerations**: Are process modes optimized (\_process vs \_physics_process, static typing enforced)?
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Game Mechanics and Systems Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Core loop integration**: Does the story properly integrate with established game core loop?
|
||||
- **Player input handling**: Are InputMap actions and device handling requirements specified?
|
||||
- **Game state management**: Are state transitions and save/load system requirements clear?
|
||||
- **UI/UX integration**: Are Control nodes, anchoring, and theme system requirements defined?
|
||||
- **Audio integration**: Are AudioStreamPlayer nodes, bus routing, and sound pooling specified?
|
||||
- **Animation systems**: Are AnimationPlayer, AnimationTree, and transition requirements clear?
|
||||
- **Physics integration**: Are RigidBody2D/3D, collision layers, and physics settings specified?
|
||||
- **Object pooling**: Are pooling strategies defined for frequently spawned entities?
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Godot-Specific Acceptance Criteria Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- **TDD testing**: Are GUT (GDScript) and GoDotTest (C#) tests defined for all criteria?
|
||||
- **Visual validation**: Are visual/aesthetic acceptance criteria measurable and testable?
|
||||
- **Performance criteria**: Is 60+ FPS target specified with frame time <16.67ms?
|
||||
- **Platform compatibility**: Are export template requirements for different platforms addressed?
|
||||
- **Input validation**: Are InputMap actions for keyboard, gamepad, and touch covered?
|
||||
- **Audio criteria**: Are audio bus levels, stream players, and audio pooling specified?
|
||||
- **Animation validation**: Are AnimationPlayer smoothness, timing, and blend requirements defined?
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Godot Testing and Validation Instructions Review
|
||||
|
||||
- **TDD Framework**: Are GUT and GoDotTest approaches with Red-Green-Refactor cycle specified?
|
||||
- **Performance profiling**: Are Godot Profiler usage and 60+ FPS validation steps defined?
|
||||
- **Export testing**: Are export template validation steps for target platforms specified?
|
||||
- **Scene testing**: Are scene instancing, transitions, and signal flow testing approaches clear?
|
||||
- **Resource validation**: Are texture compression, import settings, and pooling tests defined?
|
||||
- **Platform testing**: Are platform-specific export settings and input methods specified?
|
||||
- **Memory leak testing**: Are signal cleanup and node lifecycle validation steps included?
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Godot Performance and Optimization Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Frame rate targets**: Is 60+ FPS minimum clearly specified for all platforms?
|
||||
- **Memory budgets**: Are scene memory, resource memory, and pooling limits defined?
|
||||
- **Draw call optimization**: Are rendering batches and viewport optimization approaches specified?
|
||||
- **Mobile performance**: Are mobile export settings and touch optimization addressed?
|
||||
- **Resource optimization**: Are import settings, compression, and preloading strategies clear?
|
||||
- **Language optimization**: Are static typing (GDScript) and C# patterns (no LINQ) specified?
|
||||
- **Loading time targets**: Are scene transitions <3 seconds and resource streaming defined?
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Godot Platform and Export Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
- **Export templates**: Are platform-specific export templates and settings documented?
|
||||
- **Platform features**: Are platform-specific Godot features properly configured?
|
||||
- **Data persistence**: Are user:// path usage and save system requirements specified?
|
||||
- **Input handling**: Are InputMap configurations for each platform defined?
|
||||
- **Performance targets**: Are platform-specific 60+ FPS optimizations addressed?
|
||||
- **Export security**: Are release vs debug export settings properly configured?
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Godot Development Task Sequence Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- **TDD workflow order**: Do tasks follow TDD cycle (write tests first, then implement, then refactor)?
|
||||
- **Node hierarchy dependencies**: Are parent nodes created before child nodes?
|
||||
- **Resource dependencies**: Are resources created before scenes that use them?
|
||||
- **Signal connections**: Are signal emitters created before receivers?
|
||||
- **Testing integration**: Are GUT/GoDotTest creation tasks before implementation?
|
||||
- **Export integration**: Are export preset configurations properly sequenced?
|
||||
- **Performance validation**: Are profiling checkpoints placed throughout development?
|
||||
|
||||
### 10. Godot Anti-Hallucination Verification
|
||||
|
||||
- **Godot API accuracy**: Every Godot API reference must be verified against current Godot documentation
|
||||
- **Plugin verification**: All GDExtension and addon references must be valid
|
||||
- **Node architecture alignment**: Node relationships must match architecture specifications
|
||||
- **Performance claims verification**: 60+ FPS targets must be realistic for target platforms
|
||||
- **Resource pipeline accuracy**: All import settings and resource configurations must be valid
|
||||
- **Language strategy verification**: GDScript vs C# choices must align with performance needs
|
||||
|
||||
### 11. Godot Development Agent Implementation Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- **Godot context completeness**: Can the story be implemented without consulting external Godot documentation?
|
||||
- **Language specification clarity**: Are GDScript/C# choices and patterns unambiguous?
|
||||
- **Resource requirements clarity**: Are all resources, scenes, and import settings defined?
|
||||
- **Node relationship clarity**: Are all node interactions and signal flows explicitly defined?
|
||||
- **TDD approach completeness**: Are GUT/GoDotTest approaches fully specified?
|
||||
- **Performance validation readiness**: Are 60+ FPS validation approaches clearly defined?
|
||||
|
||||
### 12. Generate Godot Game Story Validation Report
|
||||
|
||||
Provide a structured validation report including:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Game Story Template Compliance Issues
|
||||
|
||||
- Missing Godot-specific sections from game story template
|
||||
- Unfilled placeholders or template variables specific to game development
|
||||
- Missing node specifications or resource requirements
|
||||
- Missing TDD test specifications (GUT/GoDotTest)
|
||||
- Language strategy gaps (GDScript vs C# decisions)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Critical Godot Issues (Must Fix - Story Blocked)
|
||||
|
||||
- Missing essential Godot technical information for implementation
|
||||
- No TDD test specifications (GUT/GoDotTest)
|
||||
- Performance targets not meeting 60+ FPS requirement
|
||||
- Missing language strategy (GDScript vs C# choices)
|
||||
- Incomplete node architecture or signal flow
|
||||
- Missing object pooling for spawned entities
|
||||
|
||||
#### Godot-Specific Should-Fix Issues (Important Quality Improvements)
|
||||
|
||||
- Unclear node hierarchy or signal connection patterns
|
||||
- Missing static typing in GDScript specifications
|
||||
- Incomplete resource pipeline or import settings
|
||||
- Task sequencing not following TDD cycle
|
||||
- Missing platform export template specifications
|
||||
- Inadequate performance profiling checkpoints
|
||||
|
||||
#### Game Development Nice-to-Have Improvements (Optional Enhancements)
|
||||
|
||||
- Additional Godot performance optimization context
|
||||
- Enhanced resource creation guidance and best practices
|
||||
- Clarifications for Godot-specific patterns (signals, groups)
|
||||
- Additional platform export considerations
|
||||
- Enhanced profiler usage guidance
|
||||
|
||||
#### Godot Anti-Hallucination Findings
|
||||
|
||||
- Unverifiable Godot API claims or outdated references
|
||||
- Wrong language choice justifications (GDScript vs C#)
|
||||
- Inconsistencies with Godot project architecture documents
|
||||
- Invented nodes, signals, or development patterns
|
||||
- Performance claims not achieving 60+ FPS
|
||||
- Missing static typing or optimization patterns
|
||||
|
||||
#### Godot Platform and Performance Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Performance Assessment**: 60+ FPS validation, frame time <16.67ms
|
||||
- **Platform Compatibility Check**: Export templates, InputMap, platform features
|
||||
- **Resource Pipeline Validation**: Import settings, compression, pooling strategies
|
||||
- **Godot Version Compliance**: Compatibility with Godot 4.x or 3.x LTS
|
||||
- **Language Performance**: Static typing enforcement, C# optimization patterns
|
||||
|
||||
#### Final Godot Game Development Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- **GO**: Story ready for Godot implementation with TDD and 60+ FPS targets
|
||||
- **NO-GO**: Story requires Godot-specific fixes before implementation
|
||||
- **TDD Readiness Score**: 1-10 scale based on test coverage planning
|
||||
- **Performance Readiness**: Can maintain 60+ FPS? Yes/No/Unknown
|
||||
- **Language Strategy Score**: 1-10 scale for GDScript/C# appropriateness
|
||||
- **Platform Export Readiness**: Assessment of export template preparedness
|
||||
|
||||
#### Recommended Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
Based on validation results, provide specific recommendations for:
|
||||
|
||||
- Godot technical documentation improvements needed
|
||||
- TDD test specifications (GUT/GoDotTest) to add
|
||||
- Language strategy clarifications (GDScript vs C#)
|
||||
- Performance profiling setup for 60+ FPS validation
|
||||
- Platform export template configuration needs
|
||||
- Object pooling implementation requirements
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user