map-systems

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,workflow,docs.density

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

When this skill is invoked:

Parse Arguments

Two modes:

• No argument: /map-systems — Run the full decomposition workflow (Phases 1-5) to create or update the systems index.
• next: /map-systems next — Pick the highest-priority undesigned system from the index and hand off to /design-system (Phase 6).

See .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern. Individual gate definitions live in .claude/docs/director-gates/[gate-id].md — the spawned agent reads its own gate file; do not read it in the parent session.

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

docs.density — it controls per-section depth, where workflow controls which sections exist. modes.rigor sets both together; set docs.density explicitly to vary depth alone: terse = one-line system descriptions; balanced = a brief paragraph per system + dependency notes (default); thorough = full system-by-system rationale + relationship analysis. Apply it to every section you author.

Where the per-system prose goes. templates/systems-index.md's Systems Enumeration is a fixed-column table with no description column, so at balanced and thorough the prose belongs in ## Overview — one short paragraph per system at balanced, plus relationship analysis at thorough — and in the ## Dependency Map layer notes. Do not add a column to the enumeration table — it is a fixed contract in .claude/docs/templates/systems-index.md, and its consumers (/design-system §6 and §7, /create-epics) are written against the columns it defines. Widening it is a schema change, not a formatting choice.

How the consumers actually read it. Nothing parses this table positionally. The two scripts that mention systems-index.md (gdd-structure-check.sh:51, review-scope.sh:40) match it by filename in a case statement and parse no columns at all; the two skills key on the Category column by name (design-system:229, :780). So Category is the column that must never be renamed or dropped, and the table stays a fixed contract because every consumer is written against the set of columns the template defines. At terse, the table plus a one-paragraph ## Overview is the whole output.

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

• full / standard — required before /design-system (systems must be mapped before per-system GDDs are authored).
• minimal — not required (the game brief replaces the systems index). Can still be run voluntarily.

---

Phase 1: Read Concept (Required Context)

Read the game concept and any existing design work. This provides the raw material for systems decomposition.

Required:

• Read design/gdd/game-concept.md (at minimal, read design/game-brief.md instead) — fail with a clear message if neither is found:

  "No game concept found. Run /brainstorm first to create one, then come back to decompose it into systems."

Optional (read if they exist):

• Read design/gdd/game-pillars.md — pillars constrain priority and scope
• Read design/gdd/systems-index.md — if exists, resume from where it left off (update, don't recreate from scratch)
• Glob design/gdd/*.md — check which system GDDs already exist

If the systems index already exists:

• Read it and present current status to the user
• Use AskUserQuestion to ask: "The systems index already exists with [N] systems ([M] designed, [K] not started). What would you like to do?"
  • Options: "Update the index with new systems", "Design the next undesigned system", "Review and revise priorities"

---

Phase 2: Systems Enumeration (Collaborative)

Extract and identify all systems the game needs. This is the creative core of the skill — it requires human judgment because concept docs rarely enumerate every system explicitly.

Step 2a: Extract Explicit Systems

Scan the game concept for directly mentioned systems and mechanics:

• Core Mechanics section (most explicit)
• Core Loop section (implies what systems drive each loop tier)
• Technical Considerations section (networking, procedural generation, etc.)
• MVP Definition section (required features = required systems)

Step 2b: Identify Implicit Systems

For each explicit system, identify the hidden systems it implies. Games always need more systems than the concept doc mentions. Use this inference pattern:

• "Inventory" implies: item database, equipment slots, weight/capacity rules, inventory UI, item serialization for save/load
• "Combat" implies: damage calculation, health system, hit detection, status effects, enemy AI, combat UI (health bars, damage numbers), death/respawn
• "Open world" implies: streaming/chunking, LOD system, fast travel, map/minimap, point of interest tracking, world state persistence
• "Multiplayer" implies: networking layer, lobby/matchmaking, state synchronization, anti-cheat, network UI (ping, player list)
• "Crafting" implies: recipe database, ingredient gathering, crafting UI, success/failure mechanics, recipe discovery/learning
• "Dialogue" implies: dialogue tree system, dialogue UI, choice tracking, NPC state management, localization hooks
• "Progression" implies: XP system, level-up mechanics, skill tree, unlock tracking, progression UI, progression save data

Explain in conversation text why each implicit system is needed (with examples).

Step 2c: User Review

Present the enumeration organized by category. For each system, show:

• Name
• Category
• Brief description (1 sentence)
• Whether it was explicit (from concept) or implicit (inferred)

Then use AskUserQuestion to capture feedback:

• "Are there systems missing from this list?"
• "Should any of these be combined or split?"
• "Are there systems listed that this game does NOT need?"

At collaborative — iterate until the user approves the enumeration. At guided — ask once, apply the answer, and proceed; do not loop. At autonomous — do not ask. Record the enumeration and its inferred systems via log_decision and proceed.

The loop needed an exit that does not depend on being asked. automation-modes.md:56 defines autonomous as "No AskUserQuestion", so a loop terminating on "the user approves" has no termination path there at all. Same class as Step 5b, one level up: that was an unconditional write gate, this is an unconditional control-flow loop around the question.

---

Phase 3: Dependency Mapping (Collaborative)

For each system, determine what it depends on. A system "depends on" another if it cannot function without that other system existing first.

Step 3a: Map Dependencies

For each system, list its dependencies. Use these dependency heuristics:

• Input/output dependencies: System A produces data System B needs
• Structural dependencies: System A provides the framework System B plugs into
• UI dependencies: Every gameplay system has a corresponding UI system that depends on it (but UI is designed after the gameplay system)

Step 3b: Sort by Dependency Order

Arrange systems into layers:

1. Foundation: Systems with zero dependencies (designed and built first)
2. Core: Systems depending only on Foundation systems
3. Feature: Systems depending on Core systems
4. Presentation: UI and feedback systems that wrap gameplay systems
5. Polish: Meta-systems, tutorials, analytics, accessibility

Step 3c: Detect Circular Dependencies

Check for cycles in the dependency graph. If found:

• Highlight them to the user
• Propose resolutions (interface abstraction, simultaneous design, breaking the cycle by defining a contract between the two systems)

Step 3d: Present to User

Show the dependency map as a layered list. Highlight:

• Any circular dependencies
• Any "bottleneck" systems (many others depend on them — these are high-risk)
• Any systems with no dependents (leaf nodes — lower risk, can be designed late)

Use AskUserQuestion to ask: "Does this dependency ordering look right? Any dependencies I'm missing or that should be removed?"

Review mode check — apply before spawning TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY:

• solo → skip. Note: "TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to priority assignment.
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to priority assignment.
• full → spawn as normal.

After dependency mapping is approved, spawn technical-director via Agent using gate TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY (.claude/docs/director-gates/td-system-boundary.md) before proceeding to priority assignment.

Pass: the dependency map summary, layer assignments, bottleneck systems list, any circular dependency resolutions.

Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system boundaries with the user before moving to priority assignment. If CONCERNS, note them inline in the systems index and continue.

---

Phase 4: Priority Assignment (Collaborative)

Assign each system to a priority tier based on what milestone it's needed for.

Step 4a: Auto-Assign Based on Concept

Use these heuristics for initial assignment:

• MVP: Systems mentioned in the concept's "Required for MVP" section, plus their Foundation-layer dependencies
• Vertical Slice: Systems needed for a complete experience in one area
• Alpha: All remaining gameplay systems
• Full Vision: Polish, meta, and nice-to-have systems

Step 4b: User Review

Present the priority assignments in a table. For each tier, explain why systems were placed there.

Use AskUserQuestion to ask: "Do these priority assignments match your vision? Which systems should be higher or lower priority?"

Explain reasoning in conversation: "I placed [system] in MVP because the core loop requires it — without [system], the 30-second loop can't function."

How to phrase the reasoning — this governs what you say, not a column you write. Neither table has a Why column: Systems Enumeration is # / Name / Category / Priority / Status / Design Doc / Depends On, and Recommended Design Order is Order / System / Priority / Layer / Agent(s) / Est. Effort. The rationale lives in the conversation above and, for anything the user should still see after the session, in the index's ## Overview paragraph. Do not invent a column for it.

Mix technical necessity with player-experience reasoning. A purely technical justification — "the damage system needs damage math" — is insufficient on its own when the system directly shapes what the player feels. Good reasoning names both, and cites the pillar it serves:

• "Required for the core loop — without it the player's main choice has no consequence (Pillar [N]: [pillar name])"
• "This is where [system]'s identity is established — the stat definitions here are what make it feel different from [the sibling system]"
• "Foundation for every later economy decision — the player must understand costs before any of the choices built on top of it mean anything"

Fill the brackets from this project. The bracketed slots are not decoration. Worked examples from another genre (a tower-defense "Ballista's punch-through identity… what makes it feel different from Archer", "Pillar 2: Placement is the Puzzle") get reproduced verbatim by a run against a different game, which then carries that game's vocabulary instead of its own.

Review mode check — apply before spawning PR-SCOPE:

• solo → skip. Note: "PR-SCOPE skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to writing the systems index.
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-SCOPE skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to writing the systems index.
• full → spawn as normal.

After priorities are approved, spawn producer via Agent using gate PR-SCOPE (.claude/docs/director-gates/pr-scope.md) before writing the index.

Pass: total system count per milestone tier, estimated implementation volume per tier (system count × average complexity), team size, stated project timeline.

Present the assessment. If UNREALISTIC, offer to revise priority tier assignments before writing the index. If CONCERNS, note them and continue.

Step 4c: Determine Design Order

Combine dependency sort + priority tier to produce the final design order:

1. MVP Foundation systems first
2. MVP Core systems second
3. MVP Feature systems third
4. Vertical Slice Foundation/Core systems
5. ...and so on

This is the order the team should write GDDs in.

---

Phase 5: Create Systems Index (Write)

Step 5a: Draft the Document

Using the template at .claude/docs/templates/systems-index.md, populate the systems index with all data from Phases 2-4:

• Fill the enumeration table
• Fill the dependency map
• Fill the recommended design order
• Fill the high-risk systems
• Fill progress tracker (all systems "Not Started" initially, unless GDDs already exist)

Step 5b: Approval

Present a summary of the document:

• Total systems count by category
• MVP system count
• First 3 systems in the design order
• Any high-risk items

At automation: collaborative — ask: "May I write the systems index to design/gdd/systems-index.md?" Wait for approval. Write the file only after "yes."

At automation: guided — present the summary above, name the destination (design/gdd/systems-index.md), and write it without waiting for an explicit "yes", per .claude/docs/automation-modes.md. Say what you wrote afterwards.

Keep this line scoped to its mode. automation-modes.md says guided "proceeds after a short summary, does not wait for explicit yes", and this skill's own Collaborative Protocol section is scoped to collaborative. An unconditional "wait for approval" here collides with both.

Review mode check — apply before spawning CD-SYSTEMS:

• solo → skip. Note: "CD-SYSTEMS skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 7 next steps.
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "CD-SYSTEMS skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 7 next steps.
• full → spawn as normal.

After the systems index is written, spawn creative-director via Agent using gate CD-SYSTEMS (.claude/docs/director-gates/cd-systems.md).

Pass: systems index path, game pillars and core fantasy (from design/gdd/game-concept.md), MVP priority tier system list.

Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system set with the user before GDD authoring begins. If CONCERNS, record them in the systems index as a > **Creative Director Note** placed directly beneath the ## Priority Tiers table, naming the tier each concern applies to — e.g. > **Creative Director Note** (MVP): …. templates/systems-index.md has a Priority Tiers definition table, not a section per tier, so there is no "top of the tier section" to write to — do not direct the writer to one.

Step 5c: Update Session State

After writing, create production/session-state/active.md if it does not exist, then update it with:

• Task: Systems decomposition
• Status: Systems index created
• File: design/gdd/systems-index.md
• Next: Design individual system GDDs

Verdict: COMPLETE — systems index written to design/gdd/systems-index.md. If the user declined: Verdict: BLOCKED — user did not approve the write.

---

Phase 6: Design Individual Systems (Handoff to /design-system)

This phase is entered when:

• The user says "yes" to designing systems after creating the index
• The user invokes /map-systems [system-name]
• The user invokes /map-systems next

Step 6a: Select the System

• If a system name was provided, find it in the systems index
• If next was used, pick the highest-priority undesigned system (by design order)
• If the user just finished the index, ask: "Would you like to start designing individual systems now? The first system in the design order is [name]. Or would you prefer to stop here and come back later?"

Use AskUserQuestion for: "Start designing [system-name] now, pick a different system, or stop here?"

Step 6b: Hand Off to /design-system

Once a system is selected, invoke the /design-system [system-name] skill.

The /design-system skill handles the full GDD authoring process:

• Gathers context from game concept, systems index, and dependency GDDs
• Creates a file skeleton immediately
• Walks through all 8 required sections one at a time (collaborative, incremental)
• Cross-references existing docs to prevent contradictions
• Routes to specialist agents for domain expertise
• Writes each section to file as soon as it's approved
• Runs /design-review when complete
• Updates the systems index

Do not duplicate the /design-system workflow here. This skill owns the systems index; /design-system owns individual system GDDs.

Step 6c: Loop or Stop

After /design-system completes, use AskUserQuestion:

• "Continue to the next system ([next system name])?"
• "Pick a different system?"
• "Stop here for this session?"

If continuing, return to Step 6a.

---

Phase 7: Suggest Next Steps

After the systems index is created (or after designing some systems), present next actions using AskUserQuestion:

• "Systems index is written. What would you like to do next?"
  • [A] Start designing GDDs — run /design-system [first-system-in-order]
  • [B] Run /gate-check systems-design — triggers the CD-SYSTEMS and TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY gates automatically for a formal director sign-off on the system set
  • [C] Stop here for this session

The gate-check option ([B]) is worth highlighting: running /gate-check systems-design triggers both the CD-SYSTEMS and TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY gates, catching scope issues, missing systems, and boundary problems before they're locked in across many documents. It is optional but recommended for new projects.

After any individual GDD is completed:

• "Run /design-review design/gdd/[system].md in a fresh session to validate quality"
• "Run /gate-check systems-design when all MVP GDDs are complete"

---

Collaborative Protocol

Applies in collaborative mode (the default). For guided and autonomous modes, see .claude/docs/automation-modes.md — the rules below describe what collaborative mode requires, not universal behavior.

This skill follows the collaborative design principle at every phase:

1. Question -> Options -> Decision -> Draft -> Approval at every step
2. AskUserQuestion at every decision point (Explain -> Capture pattern):
   • Phase 2: "Missing systems? Combine or split?"
   • Phase 3: "Dependency ordering correct?"
   • Phase 4: "Priority assignments match your vision?"
   • Phase 5: "May I write the systems index?"
   • Phase 6: "Start designing, pick different, or stop?" then hand off to /design-system
3. "May I write to [filepath]?" before every file write
4. Incremental writing: Update the systems index after each system is designed
5. Handoff: Individual GDD authoring is owned by /design-system, which handles incremental section writing, cross-referencing, design review, and index updates
6. Session state updates: Write to production/session-state/active.md after each milestone (index created, system designed, priorities changed)

Never auto-generate the full systems list and write it without review. Never start designing a system without user confirmation. Always show the enumeration, dependencies, and priorities for user validation.

Context Window Awareness

If context reaches or exceeds 70% at any point, append this notice:

Context is approaching the limit (≥70%). The systems index is saved to design/gdd/systems-index.md. Open a fresh Claude Code session to continue designing individual GDDs — run /map-systems next to pick up where you left off.

---

Recommended Next Steps

• Run /design-system [first-system-in-order] to author the first GDD (use design order from the index)
• Run /map-systems next to always pick the highest-priority undesigned system automatically
• Run /design-review design/gdd/[system].md in a fresh session after each GDD is authored
• Run /gate-check pre-production when all MVP GDDs are authored and reviewed