gate-check
Skill1 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Ready to advance between development phases? PASS/CONCERNS/NOT ASSESSED/FAIL with blockers and required artifacts. 'Can we move to production?'
20 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- microsoft/cat-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudiostheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- supernovae-st/nikatheir own version, first seen Oct 28, 2026
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studiosedited, first seen Oct 19, 2026
- nuncaeslupus/literary-critictheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- ShiningPlague/shiningplague-studiotheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions20 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 6
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k97% same
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 7111% same
- CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 1918% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 810% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 111% same
- scotidev/GameDevStudio★ 118% same
Wrote their own version · 14
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 324same name
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 118same name
- microsoft/cat-agent-skills★ 101same name
- supernovae-st/nika★ 96same name
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- phj128/autoworker★ 18same name
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 17same name
- CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio★ 9same name
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 5same name
- timjrobinson/Claude-Code-Construction-Manager★ 4same name
4 more not listed
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 repository153 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CCGS Skill Testing Framework/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- design/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docs/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- src/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- asset-auditSkill
- asset-specSkill
- balance-checkSkill
- brainstormSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- changelogSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- settingsSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- skill-testSkill
- smoke-checkSkill
- soak-testSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 67
NOT ASSESSED — and a project with no tests can still pass.
- Very specific: line 73
team.size: does not change how many directors spawn at a phase gate — panel width is workflow's axis (Section 4b). - Distinctive: line 93
Do not skip this confirmation step when no argument is provided.
- Distinctive: line 143
Scan first: Check all artifacts and quality gates
- Distinctive: line 144
Ask about unknowns: Don't assume PASS for things you can't verify
- Very specific: line 149
Never auto-fix: If required artifacts are missing, report the FAIL verdict and name the skill to run (e.g.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 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
!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:
- Concept — Brainstorming, game concept document
- Systems Design — Mapping systems, writing GDDs
- Technical Setup — Engine config, architecture decisions
- Pre-Production — Prototyping, vertical slice validation
- Production — Feature development (Epic/Feature/Task tracking active)
- Polish — Performance, playtesting, bug fixing
- Release — Launch prep, certification
When a gate passes (or the user explicitly accepts a CONCERNS verdict's risks — Section 6), 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 with any --review <mode> pair removed (blank = auto-detect current stage, then validate next transition). /gate-check --review full names no phase.
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, the phase-gate directors still run (phase gates are the purpose of lean mode); how many of them run is set by workflow below.
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
workflowbut is exempt fromautomation. The artifact checklist changes per tier; the collaborative prompting protocol (the Collaborative Protocol section) 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 and unit-test artifact items become non-required and the
Section 3 testing.strict check is a no-op; the smoke check is not relaxed (Section 2b) —
but at this level /smoke-check runs without game tests (its automated row reads
WAIVED), so the build check (commands.smoke, else commands.build, when set) and
the launch and critical-path checks are the floor — a build nobody launched is
NOT ASSESSED — and a project with no tests can still pass. 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). The retained screenshots
UI and Visual/Feel stories need are not test items: no qa.level relaxes them
(Section 2b).
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 | references/gate-systems-design.md |
| Systems Design → Technical Setup | references/gate-technical-setup.md |
| Technical Setup → Pre-Production | references/gate-pre-production.md |
| Pre-Production → Production | references/gate-production.md |
| Production → Polish | references/gate-polish.md |
| Polish → Release | 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
Read references/2b-workflow-tier.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
3. Run the Gate Check
Read references/3-run-gate-check.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
4. Collaborative Assessment
Read references/4-assessment.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
5. Output the Verdict
Read references/5-verdict.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
6. Update Stage on PASS
Read references/6-update-stage.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
7. Closing Next-Step Widget
Read references/7-next-steps.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Collaborative Protocol
This skill follows the collaborative design principle:
- Scan first: Check all artifacts and quality gates
- Ask about unknowns: Don't assume PASS for things you can't verify
- Present findings: Show the full checklist with status
- User decides: The verdict is a recommendation — the user makes the final call on what to do next; only the stage write is bound to it (Section 6)
- Get approval: "May I write this gate check report to production/gate-checks/?"
- 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 working — the verdict decides only whether this skill writes the new stage. On CONCERNS the user may advance by explicitly accepting the listed risks, which the report records (Section 6); on FAIL or NOT ASSESSED the stage stays where it is until a re-run passes, and nothing stops the user working on the blockers meanwhile.
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.

