day-one-patch
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Prepare a day-one patch for a game launch. Scopes, prioritises, implements, and QA-gates a focused patch addressing known issues discovered after gold master but before or immediately after public launch. Treats the patch as a mini-sprint with its own QA gate and rollback plan.
9 other projects use a version of this, 8 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudiosedited, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studiosedited, first seen Oct 19, 2026
- venus2099/codex-game-studiosedited, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Pluginedited, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- dawn840705/claude-code-studiosedited, first seen Aug 28, 2026
- dawn840705/codex-code-studiosedited, first seen Aug 28, 2026
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 8
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k57% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 11894% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1791% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 895% same
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 565% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 195% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 192% same
- venus2099/codex-game-studios★ 157% same
Wrote their own version · 1
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository68 other files it gives its agents.
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- asset-specSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- estimateSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- goal-add-minorSkill
- goal-checkSkill
- goal-setSkill
- godot-engineSkill
- helpSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- narrative-designerSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- red-flag-scanSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- safety-pushSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- session-closeSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- startSkill
- story-doneSkill
- story-readinessSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- team-artSkill
- team-audioSkill
- team-combatSkill
- team-economySkill
- team-infraSkill
- team-levelSkill
- team-marketingSkill
- team-narrativeSkill
- team-polishSkill
- team-releaseSkill
- team-securitySkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 13 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
13
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 11
Every shipped game has a day-one patch.
- Common: line 17
After the gold master build is locked (cert approved or launch candidate tagged)
- Common: line 18
When known bugs exist that are too risky to address in the gold master
- Common: line 19
When cert feedback requires minor fixes post-submission
- Common: line 20
When a pre-launch playtest surfaces must-fix issues after the release gate passed
- Common: line 23
Only P1/P2 bugs that are SAFE to fix quickly
- Common: line 24
No new features — this is fix-only
- Common: line 25
No refactoring — minimum viable change
- Very specific: line 45
If production/stage.txt is not Release or Polish (the seeded not-started is neither — it means no gate has ever passed here):
- Very specific: line 76
If [C]: output "No day-one patch required.
- Very specific: line 83
Use AskUserQuestion to confirm proceeding or reduce scope.
- Common: line 89
Before any code is written, define the rollback procedure.
- Common: line 99
Do not proceed to Phase 4 until the rollback plan is written.
- Common: line 129
Ask qa-lead to determine: Is a targeted smoke check sufficient, or do any fixes touch systems that require a broader regression?
- Common: line 131
Run the required QA scope:
- Very specific: line 200
Ask: "May I write this patch record to production/releases/day-one-patch-[version].md?"
- Common: line 206
After the patch record is written:
- Very specific: line 209
Run /bug-report verify [BUG-ID] for each fixed bug after the patch is live
- Very specific: line 210
Run /bug-report close [BUG-ID] for each verified fix
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Day-One Patch
Every shipped game has a day-one patch. Planning it before launch day prevents chaos. This skill scopes the patch to only what is safe and necessary, gates it through a lightweight QA pass, and ensures a rollback plan exists before anything ships. It is a mini-sprint — not a hotfix, not a full sprint.
When to run:
- After the gold master build is locked (cert approved or launch candidate tagged)
- When known bugs exist that are too risky to address in the gold master
- When cert feedback requires minor fixes post-submission
- When a pre-launch playtest surfaces must-fix issues after the release gate passed
Day-one patch scope rules:
- Only P1/P2 bugs that are SAFE to fix quickly
- No new features — this is fix-only
- No refactoring — minimum viable change
- Any fix that requires more than 4 hours of dev time belongs in patch 1.1, not day-one
Output: production/releases/day-one-patch-[version].md
If an artifact named here is absent: say so plainly in one line, skip that step, and continue. Never invent the file to satisfy a checklist, and never fail a close because an optional artifact was never created.
Phase 1: Load Release Context
Read:
production/stage.txt— confirm project is in Release stage- The most recent release-gate verdict from
/gate-check release— recorded indocs/devlog.mdand the newestproduction/session-logs/entry production/qa/bugs/*.md— load all bugs with Status: Open or Fixed — Pending Verificationproduction/sprints/most recent — understand what shippedproduction/security/security-audit-*.mdmost recent — check for any open security items
If production/stage.txt is not Release or Polish (the seeded not-started is
neither — it means no gate has ever passed here):
"Day-one patch prep is for Release-stage projects. Current stage: [stage]. This skill is not appropriate until you are approaching launch."
Phase 2: Scope the Patch
Step 2a — Classify open bugs for patch inclusion
For each open bug, evaluate:
| Criterion | Include in day-one? |
| S1 or S2 severity | Yes — must include if safe to fix |
| P1 priority | Yes |
| Fix estimated < 4 hours | Yes |
| Fix requires architecture change | No — defer to 1.1 |
| Fix introduces new code paths | No — too risky |
| Fix is data/config only (no code change) | Yes — very low risk |
| Cert feedback requirement | Yes — required for platform approval |
| S3/S4 severity | Only if trivial config fix; otherwise defer |
Step 2b — Present patch scope to user
Use AskUserQuestion:
- Prompt: "Based on open bugs and cert feedback, here is the proposed day-one patch scope. Does this look right?"
- Show: table of included bugs (ID, severity, description, estimated effort)
- Show: table of deferred bugs (ID, severity, reason deferred)
- Options:
[A] Approve this scope/[B] Adjust — I want to add or remove items/[C] No day-one patch needed
If [C]: output "No day-one patch required. Proceed to /gate-check." Stop.
Step 2c — Check total scope
Sum estimated effort. If total exceeds 1 day of work:
"⚠️ Patch scope is [N hours] — this exceeds a safe day-one window. Consider deferring lower-priority items to patch 1.1. A bloated day-one patch introduces more risk than it removes."
Use AskUserQuestion to confirm proceeding or reduce scope.
Phase 3: Rollback Plan
Before any code is written, define the rollback procedure. This is non-negotiable.
Spawn release-manager via Task. Ask them to produce a rollback plan covering:
- How to revert to the gold master build on each target platform
- Platform-specific rollback constraints (some platforms cannot roll back cert builds)
- Who is responsible for triggering the rollback
- What player communication is required if a rollback occurs
Present the rollback plan. Ask: "May I write this rollback plan to production/releases/rollback-plan-[version].md?"
Do not proceed to Phase 4 until the rollback plan is written.
Phase 4: Implement Fixes
For each bug in the approved scope, spawn a focused implementation loop:
- Spawn
lead-programmervia Task with:- The bug report (exact reproduction steps and root cause if known)
- The constraint: minimum viable fix only, no cleanup
- The affected files (from bug report Technical Context section)
- The lead-programmer implements and runs targeted tests.
- Spawn
qa-testervia Task to verify: does the bug reproduce after the fix?
For config/data-only fixes: make the change directly (no programmer agent needed). Confirm the value changed and re-run any relevant smoke test.
Phase 5: Patch QA Gate
This is a lightweight QA pass — not a full QA cycle (/qa-plan + /regression-suite). The patch is already QA-approved from the release gate; we are only re-verifying the changed areas.
Spawn qa-lead via Task with:
- List of all changed files
- List of bugs fixed (with verification status from Phase 4)
- The smoke check scope for the affected systems
Ask qa-lead to determine: Is a targeted smoke check sufficient, or do any fixes touch systems that require a broader regression?
Run the required QA scope:
- Targeted smoke check — run
/regression-suitescoped to affected systems - Broader regression — run targeted tests in
tests/unit/andtests/integration/for affected systems
QA verdict must be PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS before proceeding. If FAIL: scope the failing fix out of the day-one patch and defer to 1.1.
Phase 6: Generate Patch Record
# Day-One Patch: [Game Name] v[version]
**Date prepared**: [date]
**Target release**: [launch date or "day of launch"]
**Base build**: [gold master tag or commit]
**Patch build**: [patch tag or commit]
---
## Patch Notes (Internal)
### Bugs Fixed
| BUG-ID | Severity | Description | Fix summary |
|--------|----------|-------------|-------------|
| BUG-NNN | S[1-4] | [description] | [one-line fix] |
### Deferred to 1.1
| BUG-ID | Severity | Description | Reason deferred |
|--------|----------|-------------|-----------------|
| BUG-NNN | S[1-4] | [description] | [reason] |
---
## QA Sign-Off
**QA scope**: [Targeted smoke / Broader regression]
**Verdict**: [PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS]
**QA lead**: qa-lead agent
**Date**: [date]
**Warnings (if any)**: [list or "None"]
---
## Rollback Plan
See: `production/releases/rollback-plan-[version].md`
**Trigger condition**: If [N] or more S1 bugs are reported within [X] hours of launch, execute rollback.
**Rollback owner**: [user / producer]
---
## Approvals Required Before Deploy
- [ ] lead-programmer: all fixes reviewed
- [ ] qa-lead: QA gate PASS confirmed
- [ ] producer: deployment timing approved
- [ ] release-manager: platform submission confirmed
---
## Player-Facing Patch Notes
[Draft for community-manager to review before publishing]
[list player-facing changes in plain language]Ask: "May I write this patch record to production/releases/day-one-patch-[version].md?"
Phase 7: Next Steps
After the patch record is written:
- Draft player-facing patch notes inline (community-manager dispatch for tone if needed)
- Run
/bug-report verify [BUG-ID]for each fixed bug after the patch is live - Run
/bug-report close [BUG-ID]for each verified fix - Schedule a post-launch review 48–72 hours after launch using
/retrospective launch
If any S1 bugs remain open after the patch:
"⚠️ S1 bugs remain open and were not patched. These are accepted risks. Document them in the rollback plan trigger conditions — if they occur at scale, rollback may be preferable to a follow-up patch."
Collaborative Protocol
- Scope discipline is everything — resist scope creep; every addition increases risk
- Rollback plan first, always — a patch without a rollback plan is irresponsible
- Deferred is not forgotten — every deferred bug gets a 1.1 ticket automatically
- Player communication is part of the patch — draft player-facing patch notes inline (community-manager dispatch for tone if needed); they are a required output, not optional
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

