!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,workflow,qa.level,testing.strict,performance.enforce,team.size,project.stage,system_overrides

Resolved above — use as-is; --review overrides review_mode. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

Phase Gate Validation

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

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

Production Stages (7)

The project progresses through these stages:

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

When a gate passes, update the stage in both project.yaml (set project.stage: <new-stage>) AND write the new stage name to production/stage.txt (single line, e.g. Production). Dual-write keeps backward compatibility with hooks that haven't migrated yet. This updates the status line immediately.

---

1. Parse Arguments

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

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

workflow (per .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md):

gate-check runs project-wide, so it uses the project-level workflow for the gate's overall artifact checklist (the loaded gate file), AND consults workflow_overrides.system_overrides.<system> per-system when validating MVP GDDs — a system pinned to a higher tier must meet that tier's section count before the gate passes, regardless of the project-level workflow (see Section 2b, "Per-system overrides").

gate-check honors workflow but is exempt from automation. The artifact checklist changes per tier; the collaborative prompting protocol (Section 8) always applies — a phase gate is a deliberate human checkpoint, never auto-run.

qa.level: controls test enforcement at phase gates, where workflow controls which artifacts are required. modes.rigor sets both together; set qa.level explicitly to vary enforcement alone. At minimal, no test gates apply — the test-evidence / unit-test / smoke artifact items become non-required and the Section 3 testing.strict check is a no-op. At standard, Logic + Integration tests must pass. At full, a full coverage check + regression suite are required (coverage minimum from qa.coverage_minimum if set).

team.size: does not change how many directors spawn at a phase gate — panel width is workflow's axis (Section 4b). This value affects only the specialist depth within each director's review. individual uses the core specialist set; small the standard set; studio adds engine sub-specialists. It never skips a director — skipping directors is review_mode's job. Both review_mode and team.size are now fronted by modes.rigor — one rigor choice sets both — and each still overrides that axis when set explicitly (a full-rigor project gets the studio set; lighter tiers get individual).

• With argument: /gate-check production — validate readiness for that specific phase

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

  Use AskUserQuestion:

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

  Do not skip this confirmation step when no argument is provided.

---

2. Phase Gate Definitions

Each gate's checklist — required artifacts, quality checks, and its workflow-tier reductions — lives in its own file. Read only the row for the target phase transition; never load the others.

Gate	Definition file
Concept → Systems Design	.claude/skills/gate-check/references/gate-systems-design.md
Systems Design → Technical Setup	.claude/skills/gate-check/references/gate-technical-setup.md
Technical Setup → Pre-Production	.claude/skills/gate-check/references/gate-pre-production.md
Pre-Production → Production	.claude/skills/gate-check/references/gate-production.md
Production → Polish	.claude/skills/gate-check/references/gate-polish.md
Polish → Release	.claude/skills/gate-check/references/gate-release.md

Each file states the full baseline first, then the standard and minimal reductions for that gate. Apply the tier resolved in Section 1.

2b. Workflow Tier Adjustment

Each gate file carries its own tier reductions (see Section 2). Two rules apply across all of them:

How to apply: run the loaded gate's checklist, then apply that file's tier reduction for the tier resolved in Section 1. drop = not checked at this tier; → recommended = absent surfaces as CONCERNS, never a Blocker; items not named keep their baseline status. Reductions only ever relax a requirement — the only thing that adds one is workflow_overrides (below).

qa.level (Section 1) further relaxes the test items independently of the tier: at qa.level: minimal the test-evidence / unit-test items become non-required at every workflow tier (so even workflow: full does not require them); the Section 3 testing.strict check is then a no-op.

The smoke check is excluded from that relaxation, and is the floor. qa.level relaxes per-story test evidence; a smoke check is build health, not story evidence, and the two are already held apart on exactly this basis in .claude/docs/coding-standards.md ("/smoke-check is a build-health gate, not a per-story evidence gate ... This divergence is intentional"). So a gate file that requires a smoke report keeps requiring it at every qa.level.

Without that exclusion the Production → Polish gate had zero required artifacts at rigor: minimal and could not fail on artifacts by construction: minimal reduced the gate to the smoke check alone, qa.level then dropped the smoke check too, and one modes.rigor setting fires both. Two agents found it independently on the same fixture.

A gate with no required artifacts left must say so, and may not return PASS. After applying the tier reduction and the qa.level relaxation, count what remains required. If the count is zero, report NOT ASSESSED naming both reducers and the gate — "Production → Polish at workflow: minimal + qa.level: minimal leaves no required artifact; this gate verified nothing" — rather than a PASS earned by having nothing to check. Per .claude/rules/skill-authoring.md obligation 1, a run that could not assess its scope has not established that the scope is good, and obligation 3 requires the emptiness to be visible in the output rather than inferable from a silent green.

performance.enforce is likewise independent of the tier, and a tier reduction never suppresses it. The performance check in Section 3 runs at every workflow tier, and block makes a breach a Blocker at every workflow tier. Do not read a gate file's "everything else drops" as dropping it: off is the only thing that makes budgets informational, and it is a deliberate choice the user makes on the same key.

Without this, performance.enforce: block is inert on every rigor: minimal project — minimal used to reduce the Polish gate to the smoke check alone, and "Performance is within budget" sits in the dropped remainder. Two independent agents run against a project breaching three of four budgets both spotted the contradiction, both overrode the literal reading to reach FAIL, and both flagged it as the call most likely to be wrong. A setting that only works because agents disregard a rule is not wired.

Per-system overrides (workflow_overrides.system_overrides)

Independent of the project-level tier above, and applied only on the gates that validate MVP GDDs (Systems Design → Technical Setup, and the GDD-completeness checks at Pre-Production → Production). For each system, resolve its effective tier:

1. If the block's system_overrides lists <system> → that tier
2. Else the project-level workflow

Before applying any of them, check the block the other way round: does every KEY match a system? <system> is the GDD filename stem (.claude/docs/workflow-modes.md), so for each key in system_overrides, look for design/gdd/<key>.md. Any key with no matching stem is reported, naming the key and listing the stems that do exist:

system_overrides key 'no-such-system' matches no GDD in design/gdd/. Available stems: combat, inventory, hammer-heat-system. This override is doing nothing.

Surface it as a CONCERNS-level finding, not a Blocker — the project is still gateable, but an override the user believes is in force and is not is exactly how a documented escape hatch silently stops working.

This is the one site that performs the check. workflow-modes.md:72 says "a key that matches no system is an error, not a no-op", and this is the only skill that implements it — the three story skills resolve only in the system → override direction, so an orphan key is never looked up and never noticed. /gate-check is the right home: it already resolves the whole block, and it is the project-wide audit rather than a per-story one.

Validate each GDD against its own effective tier's section count:

• A system pinned higher than the project (e.g. system_overrides.combat: full on a standard project) blocks the gate until that system's GDD meets the higher bar (combat → all 8 sections). This is the one case where a per-system setting makes the gate stricter than the project tier.
• A system pinned lower (e.g. inventory: minimal) relaxes only that system — its GDD is checked at the lower tier; every other system stays at the project level. A system pinned minimal imposes no GDD section requirement at all (minimal = "game brief replaces GDDs" — .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md): it never blocks the gate on a missing or incomplete GDD. Do not invent an "acceptance-criteria-only" floor for it — there is none.

Additive overrides (the only things that make the gate stricter).

• workflow_overrides.art_bible_strict: true forces the complete (9-section) art bible at the Technical Setup → Pre-Production and Pre-Production → Production gates regardless of tier or whether visual-asset stories exist.
• workflow_overrides.edge_cases: true and workflow_overrides.tuning_knobs: true force those GDD sections required when validating GDD completeness, additive on top of the resolved tier (e.g. at standard, tuning_knobs: true makes the otherwise-optional Tuning Knobs section blocking). These never relax — a false value is the default/no-op, never a way to drop a section the tier already requires.

---

3. Run the Gate Check

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

For each item in the target gate:

Artifact Checks

Resolve existence and counts deterministically — do not open files to find out what exists:

Bash: bash .claude/scripts/artifact-check.sh --phase [source-phase]

Pass the phase being advanced from (its steps are the work that must be complete): systems-design for the Systems Design → Technical Setup gate, pre-production for Pre-Production → Production, and so on.

It reads workflow-catalog.yaml — which already encodes each step's glob, pattern, min_count and any_of — and reports per step:

status	Meaning
PRESENT	glob matched, min_count met, pattern found where specified
ABSENT	nothing matched
SHORT	matched but fewer than min_count (count= and min= given)
PATTERN_MISS	files exist but none contains the required marker
NO_CHECK	the step declares no artifact — not detectable from disk

It emits observations, never a verdict: you apply the workflow tier and the required/optional split from Section 2. An ABSENT required artifact is a blocker at full and frequently not one at minimal; the script does not know that and does not decide it.

NO_CHECK is not PRESENT. The header prints a NO_CHECK: count before any row precisely so this cannot be skimmed past. Those steps were scanned, not satisfied — carry each into Section 4 (Collaborative Assessment) and ask, or mark MANUAL CHECK NEEDED. A gate that reports PASS because most of its checklist was undetectable is the failure mode this count exists to prevent.

Existence is not adequacy. The script cannot tell a real document from a template skeleton. So: for any artifact the verdict actually turns on, spot-read it and confirm it has real content — the same escalation rule the gdd-structure-check.sh step below uses. Do not spot-read artifacts the verdict does not turn on.

A smoke report is always an artifact the verdict turns on — spot-reading it is mandatory, not discretionary. At minimal it is frequently the only required artifact, so the whole gate rests on one file that nothing generated and nothing verifies. Check its claims against the repo, and raise any that the tree contradicts:

• It reports a passing automated suite → tests/ must actually contain test files and the project must have a runner. "24 passed, 0 failed" in a repo with no tests/unit/, no tests/integration/ and no runner is a finding, not evidence.
• It marks a critical path PASS → the code for that path must exist in the code root. A PASS on "banking ends the run" with no banking code is a finding.
• It carries no date, or predates the newest commit touching the code root → say so; a stale smoke report describes a build that no longer exists.

Report a contradiction at the same level the artifact was required at: a Blocker where the smoke check is required, CONCERNS where it is recommended. This was found by handing a gate a one-page fabricated smoke report on a two-file repo; it cleared on existence plus a verdict-line grep.

For code checks, verify directory structure and file counts.

Systems Design → Technical Setup gate — cross-GDD review check: Use Glob('design/gdd/gdd-cross-review-*.md') to find the /review-all-gdds report. If no file matches: at full mark the "cross-GDD review report exists" artifact as FAIL and surface it prominently ("No /review-all-gdds report found in design/gdd/. Run /review-all-gdds before advancing to Technical Setup."); at standard the report is recommended, so mark it CONCERNS, not a blocker; at minimal this gate is not applicable (see the gate file). If a file is found, read it and check the verdict line: a FAIL verdict means the cross-GDD consistency check failed and must be resolved before advancing.

Quality Checks

• For test checks: Run the test suite via Bash if a test runner is configured. If no runner is configured, that is NOT ASSESSED, not a silent skip — see the trigger in the verdict section. A gate that ran no tests found no test failures, which is not the same as passing. A test failure's effect on the verdict depends on the testing.strict block resolved in Phase 1 (resolve_config merges project.local.yaml over project.yaml; reading the file directly would drop a local override), per test type:

  • Logic — failures in tests/unit/, gated by testing.strict.logic.
  • Integration — failures in tests/integration/, gated by testing.strict.integration.
  • For each type: take testing.strict.<type> from that block; use it only if its value is true or false (case-insensitive). If the key is absent, empty, or holds any other value, read testing.strict as a plain boolean (legacy single-value form); if that too is absent or invalid, default to true (Logic and Integration are both strict by default — behavior unchanged from before this setting existed). Surface any unrecognized value to the user.
  • At a strict (true) gate level, failures of that type are Blockers (verdict FAIL). At an advisory (false) level, they are Concerns (verdict minimum CONCERNS, not FAIL) — list them under Recommendations, not Blockers.

• For design review checks, gather section presence deterministically — do not read the GDDs to count headings:

  Bash: bash .claude/scripts/gdd-structure-check.sh
  

  It prints a PRESENT: / ABSENT: pair per GDD and already accepts ## Detailed Design as satisfying the Detailed Rules requirement. It reports presence only and makes no REQUIRED/ADVISORY judgment.

  Then apply each GDD's effective tier (per-system resolution below) to those lists — all 8 sections at full, the 5 standard sections (+ conditional Formulas) at standard. A missing required section blocks; a missing section that is optional at the effective tier is advisory. A section reported PRESENT can still fail review if it is an empty heading — spot-read any section the verdict actually turns on.

• For performance checks: read the budgets (, , , ) from (else technical-preferences.md) and compare against any profiling data in or recent output. What a breach is set by , taken from the Phase 1 resolved block (it is locally overridable, so do not read the file for this one):

Cross-Reference Checks

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

---

4. Collaborative Assessment

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

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

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

---

4b. Director Panel Assessment

The panel is set by two independent axes, both resolved in Phase 1: review_mode decides whether the panel runs, workflow decides how wide it is.

Axis 1 — review_mode decides whether any director spawns:

• solo → skip the panel entirely. Note in output: "Director Panel skipped — Solo mode. Gate verdict based on artifact and quality checks only." Proceed to Phase 5.
• lean → run the panel (phase gates always run in lean mode — this is their purpose).
• full → run the panel.

Axis 2 — workflow decides the panel width. Directors are Opus-tier, so a fixed four-director panel costs a two-system jam exactly what it costs a thirty-system commercial project. The gate still runs at every tier; only its breadth scales:

workflow	Panel	Directors
minimal	1	producer
standard	2	technical-director, producer
full	4	creative-director, technical-director, producer, art-director

producer is in every panel — scope and schedule readiness is the one judgment no tier makes optional. technical-director joins at standard because that is the first tier requiring architecture artifacts. creative-director and art-director join at full, the only tier requiring the full art bible and UX spec set for them to assess.

Width is not the same as strictness. A narrower panel does not soften the verdict: the escalation rule in .claude/docs/director-gates.md is unchanged — the strictest verdict returned by whoever ran still wins. Do not infer PASS from a perspective that was never consulted.

Before generating the final verdict, spawn the directors for the resolved tier as parallel subagents via Agent using the parallel gate protocol from .claude/docs/director-gates.md. Issue all the Agent calls simultaneously — do not wait for one before starting the next.

Gate IDs:

1. creative-director — gate CD-PHASE-GATE (.claude/docs/director-gates/cd-phase-gate.md)
2. technical-director — gate TD-PHASE-GATE (.claude/docs/director-gates/td-phase-gate.md)
3. producer — gate PR-PHASE-GATE (.claude/docs/director-gates/pr-phase-gate.md)
4. art-director — gate AD-PHASE-GATE (.claude/docs/director-gates/ad-phase-gate.md)

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

Name the omissions in the output. Below the Director Panel summary, when the panel ran narrower than four, state which perspectives did not run and how to get them — e.g. "Panel: 2 of 4 (workflow: standard). Creative and Art perspectives not consulted. Run /gate-check --review full or set modes.workflow: full for the complete panel." A silently narrow panel reads as a clean bill of health from reviewers who never looked.

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

## Director Panel Assessment

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

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

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

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

Apply to the verdict:

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

---

5. Output the Verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Verdict: [PASS / NOT ASSESSED / CONCERNS / FAIL]
- **PASS**: All required artifacts present, all quality checks passing
- **CONCERNS**: Minor gaps exist but can be addressed during the next phase
- **FAIL**: Critical blockers must be resolved before advancing
- **NOT ASSESSED**: One or more required checks could not be run at all — name
  which, and why, in the Blockers section

NOT ASSESSED — when the gate could not look. Rank: it outranks PASS (a gate that could not check part of its scope has not established the phase is ready) and ranks below CONCERNS and FAIL (a known blocker is more actionable than an unknown, and demoting it behind an access problem buries it). It is not a softer FAIL: "I checked and found a blocker" and "I could not check" need different fixes — one needs work done, the other needs the input produced or made readable.

Verdict precedence — first matching rule wins, evaluated in this order: FAIL, then CONCERNS, then NOT ASSESSED, then PASS. A gate with both a real blocker and an unassessable check is FAIL: the blocker is the actionable finding. Stating the order mechanically removes the inference — the rank sentence above says what outranks what, but only an ordered list says what to do when two conditions hold at once.

Emit it when any of:

• A required artifact exists but cannot be assessed — empty, unreadable, or still entirely [TO BE CONFIGURED] / template placeholders. Present-but-empty is the case that most looks like present.

• A quality check's input carries no measured data. Section 3 compares the performance budgets against "profiling data in tests/performance/ or recent /perf-profile output" — and /perf-profile's report template pre-fills [16.67ms] as the budget, so it can render ">99% headroom" from zero profiler data. Placeholder numbers are not measurements: a budget nobody set is not a budget that was met. Absent data already prompts (Section 4 offers to run /perf-profile); this covers data that is present and hollow, which is the case that looks like a measurement.

• A test check the tier requires could not be executed — no test runner is configured, or the runner is configured but failed to start. Section 3 runs the suite "if a test runner is configured", and an unconfigured runner produced no failures, so the test check contributed nothing to the verdict and the gate could still reach PASS. Meanwhile testing.strict.logic and .integration both default to true, so the project's own configuration called those gates BLOCKING. A blocking gate that never ran is the unknown this verdict exists to name. Remediation is already listed under Common Gaps (/test-setup); this is what the verdict does with it.

  Scope this to tiers that require tests. At qa.level: minimal no test gates apply at all (see the config block above), so a missing runner there is the configured posture, not a hole — firing the trigger would make every minimal gate permanently NOT ASSESSED and stop stage advancement, the same over-broad reading the director trigger below warns against. Fires only where the resolved tier actually asked for the test check.

• A MANUAL CHECK NEEDED item the user never resolved. Section 4 already refuses to assume PASS for unverifiable items and marks them this way — but until now the verdict vocabulary had nowhere to put one, so an unresolved manual check had to land inside PASS, CONCERNS or FAIL anyway. This is where it goes.

• A director the resolved tier was supposed to spawn did not return — it errored, produced no verdict, or was interrupted.

  Scope this narrowly, and do not read it as "fewer than four directors ran". Section 4b narrows the panel — 1 director at , 2 at , 4 at , and none in — and that narrowing is a deliberate, announced reduction, not a failure to assess. The broad reading makes every , and gate permanently NOT ASSESSED, which means the verdict can never be PASS and Section 6 can never advance . since those are the common tiers. The trigger fires only when a director the tier call for fails to come back — a hole in the panel you expected, never the panel you deliberately chose.

Never resolve an unknown by assuming the permissive reading. If the check could not run, that fact is the finding.

---

5a. Chain-of-Verification

After drafting the verdict in Phase 5, challenge it before finalising.

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

Tool-action requirement: At least 2 of the 5 challenge questions below must be answered by re-reading a specific file (Read tool) or re-running a specific check (Grep tool) — not by reflection alone. Mark these with [TOOL ACTION] to indicate a tool was used.

For a PASS draft:

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

For a CONCERNS draft:

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

For a FAIL draft:

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

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

Step 3 — Revise if needed:

• If any answer reveals a missed blocker → upgrade verdict (PASS→CONCERNS or CONCERNS→FAIL)
• If any answer reveals a check that could not be run rather than one that ran and passed → PASS→NOT ASSESSED. The first two PASS-draft questions above ("verified by actually reading a file, vs. inferring", "MANUAL CHECK NEEDED items I marked PASS") exist to find exactly this, and until now a yes to either had no verdict to move to
• If any answer reveals an over-stated blocker → downgrade only if citing specific evidence
• Never revise NOT ASSESSED down to PASS by re-reasoning about the missing input. Only obtaining the input clears it
• If answers are consistent → confirm verdict unchanged

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

---

6. Update Stage on PASS

When the verdict is PASS and the user confirms they want to advance, write the new stage to BOTH project.yaml and the legacy production/stage.txt.

6.1 Primary write — project.yaml

Set project.stage to the new stage name in project.yaml at the repo root.

• If a project: block already exists: Read project.yaml first (the Edit tool requires the file to have been read in this session), then use the Edit tool to change its stage: value.
• If project.yaml exists but has no project: block: Read project.yaml first, then use the Edit tool to insert the block immediately after the framework: block (before modes:). Insert exactly (replace <new-stage>):

  project:
    stage: <new-stage>
  

• If project.yaml does not exist at all: create it with the Write tool using this v1.1 minimal template (replace <new-stage> and the date):

  # CCGS project configuration — single source of truth for project settings.
  # Schema: grep the `## <key>` section of .claude/docs/effects-map.md —
  # it is ~31k tokens whole, ~900 per section. Do not open it entire.
  
  schema_version: 1
  
  framework:
    version: 1.1.1
    last_upgraded: <YYYY-MM-DD>
  
  project:
    stage: <new-stage>
  

  Do not seed modes.review_mode here. It is a rigor-fronted knob — modes.rigor supplies its value, so an explicit value would shadow the rigor expansion and pin the review mode regardless of the project's rigor. Test Y.6 locks this in.

6.2 Legacy fallback write — production/stage.txt

Also write the single-line stage name (no trailing newline) so hooks that have not migrated still work. Ensure the production/ directory exists first:

mkdir -p production && printf '%s' "Production" > production/stage.txt

6.3 Verify both writes

After both writes, Read project.yaml and production/stage.txt and confirm both show the new stage. If they diverge, report the discrepancy to the user and stop — a split stage indicator corrupts future auto-detection.

Always ask before writing: "Gate passed. May I update project.stage in project.yaml to 'Production' (and the legacy production/stage.txt)?"

6.4 Rigor-fit check (advisory — never affects the verdict)

After the stage advance is confirmed, apply the raise trigger in .claude/docs/settings-guidance.md § 4: if the new stage is Production (or later) while the resolved modes.workflow is minimal (the rigor: minimal posture, from the config block above), add one line:

"You're entering [stage] on rigor: minimal — most projects this size run standard. Revisit with /settings modes.rigor=standard?"

Offer it once, here at the gate. Route to /settings — never change the setting yourself.

---

7. Closing Next-Step Widget

After the verdict is presented and any stage update is complete (project.yaml + stage.txt), close with a structured next-step prompt using AskUserQuestion.

Tailor the options to the gate that just ran:

For systems-design PASS:

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

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

For technical-setup PASS:

Gate passed. What would you like to do next?
[A] Run /create-control-manifest — generate the layer rules manifest from your Accepted ADRs (do this first)
[B] Run /vertical-slice — build the Vertical Slice (do this before writing epics — validate fun first)
[C] Write more ADRs first — run /architecture-decision [next-system]
[D] Stop here for this session

Note for technical-setup PASS: The Pre-Production sequence is deliberately ordered to validate fun before committing to detailed planning:

1. /create-control-manifest — extract technical rules from Accepted ADRs (required before epics)
2. /vertical-slice — build the Vertical Slice FIRST, before writing epics or stories
3. Playtest → /playtest-report — at least 1 session required to pass the Pre-Production gate; 3+ recommended before committing the full team
4. /ux-design [screen] — UX specs for main menu, core HUD, pause menu (if not done)
5. /create-epics layer:foundation then /create-epics layer:core — plan after fun is validated
6. /create-stories [epic-slug] for each epic
7. /sprint-plan new

Why prototype before epics? If the prototype reveals the core loop needs to change, epics written before that discovery will be partially wrong. Validate fun cheaply first, then plan in detail. This is the #1 lesson from GDC postmortem data.

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

---

8. Follow-Up Actions

Based on the verdict, suggest specific next steps:

• No art bible? → /art-bible to create the visual identity specification
• Art bible exists but no asset specs? → /asset-spec system:[name] to generate per-asset visual specs and generation prompts from approved GDDs
• No game concept? → /brainstorm to create one
• No systems index? → /map-systems to decompose the concept into systems
• Missing design docs? → /reverse-document or delegate to game-designer
• Small design change needed? → /quick-design for changes under ~4 hours (bypasses full GDD pipeline)
• No UX specs? → /ux-design [screen name] to author specs, or /team-ui [feature] for full pipeline
• UX specs not reviewed? → /ux-review [file] or /ux-review all to validate
• No accessibility requirements doc? → run /ux-design which creates both design/accessibility-requirements.md and design/ux/interaction-patterns.md in one step
• No interaction pattern library? → /ux-design patterns to initialize it
• GDDs not cross-reviewed? → /review-all-gdds (run after all MVP GDDs are individually approved)
• Cross-GDD consistency issues? → fix flagged GDDs, then re-run /review-all-gdds
• No test framework? → /test-setup to scaffold the framework for your engine
• No QA plan for current sprint? → /qa-plan sprint to generate one before implementation begins
• Missing ADRs? → /architecture-decision for individual decisions
• No master architecture doc? → /create-architecture for the full blueprint
• ADRs missing engine compatibility sections? → Re-run /architecture-decision or manually add Engine Compatibility sections to existing ADRs
• Missing control manifest? → /create-control-manifest (requires Accepted ADRs)
• Missing epics? → /create-epics layer: foundation then /create-epics layer: core (requires control manifest)

Neither of these has a skill that writes it — the remediations must not imply otherwise. Naming "/ux-design Phase 2b" would point at the step that reads design/player-journey.md, landing the user back at the check that just failed. Naming /quick-design would point at a skill that writes design/quick-specs/[name]-[date].md and would leave this gate still failing. Both docs are hand-authored from their templates; say so plainly rather than naming a skill that cannot produce them.

• Need a quick sprint check? → /sprint-status for current sprint progress snapshot
• Performance unknown? → /perf-profile
• Not localized? → /localize
• Ready for release? → /launch-checklist

---

Collaborative Protocol

This skill follows the collaborative design principle:

1. Scan first: Check all artifacts and quality gates
2. Ask about unknowns: Don't assume PASS for things you can't verify
3. Present findings: Show the full checklist with status
4. User decides: The verdict is a recommendation — the user makes the final call
5. Get approval: "May I write this gate check report to production/gate-checks/?"
6. Never auto-fix: If required artifacts are missing, report the FAIL verdict and name the skill to run (e.g. "run /test-setup"). Do NOT create missing files or re-run the gate automatically. Creating files to manufacture a PASS defeats the gate's purpose.

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