Gdd Audit

Pass 1 — Mechanical Conformance

Diff the target GDD against the rule and template. Report only:

• Missing required sections
• Empty or placeholder sections
• Missing edge-case coverage
• Formulas not in standard format

If the document is clean, state so in one line and move on.

Pass 2 — Role Critique

Each reviewer outputs 2–4 faults from their angle only. No overlap between reviewers. No praise. Each fault must:

• Cite a specific GDD section, claim, or omission
• Name what it conflicts with (pillar / rule / sister-GDD / coding standard)
• Propose a fix direction, not a full fix
• Have concrete doc evidence — no taste-based faults

Fixed reviewers (always fire):

1. creative-director — Pillar fit against the game's pillars (read design/gdd/game-pillars.md). Any anti-pillar triggered? Does this belong in this game?

2. systems-designer — Internal coherence, unstated assumptions, and sister-GDD interfaces. Name every other system this touches and flag where the interfaces disagree.

3. qa-lead — Testability as written, missing acceptance criteria, ambiguity that will breed bugs, regression risk for adjacent systems.

4. technical-director — Buildability under the project's engine and .claude/docs/coding-standards.md. Is an ADR required?

Swap reviewer (pick one, matched to GDD domain):

Pass 3 — Synthesis

• Load-bearing gaps: faults raised by 2+ reviewers independently. These are the real design problems.
• What passed: one line per area reviewers did not flag.

7. Output the review in this format:

## GDD Audit: [Document Title]
Focus: [focus] | Swap reviewer: [role]

### Pass 1 — Mechanical Conformance
[findings or "Clean."]

### Pass 2 — Role Critique

#### creative-director
- **Fault**: [...]
  - Conflicts with: [...]
  - Fix direction: [...]

#### systems-designer
[...]

#### qa-lead
[...]

#### technical-director
[...]

#### [swap-role]
[...]

### Pass 3 — Synthesis

**Load-bearing gaps:**
- [gap raised by 2+ reviewers]

**What passed:**
- [area 1]
- [area 2]

### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]

8. Contextual next step recommendations:
   • If Pass 1 flagged structural issues: suggest /design-review first before re-running this audit.
   • If math, formulas, or economy was flagged: suggest /balance-check.
   • If architecture concerns were raised: suggest /architecture-decision to document the decision before implementation.
   • If implementation already exists: suggest /code-review on the relevant source files.
   • If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: do NOT proceed to /gate-check — fix first, then re-audit.
   • If verdict is APPROVED: the GDD is ready for sign-off per .claude/docs/review-workflow.md (requires game-designer and creative-director approval).
   • If design/gdd/systems-index.md exists and references this GDD: suggest the user update the systems index status to match the verdict.

Note: This skill is read-only. It does not write the audit to disk. If the user wants the audit saved, they will ask and confirm the filepath per the collaboration protocol in CLAUDE.md.36:["$","$L3d",null,{"content":"$3e","frontMatter":{"name":"gdd-audit","description":"Multi-role red-team audit of a single GDD. Five reviewers (creative-director, systems-designer, qa-lead, technical-director, plus one domain swap role) surface faults, gaps, contradictions, and pillar drift, then issue a verdict and name the follow-up skill. Run this after /design-review passes, before handing the GDD to programmers.","argument-hint":"[path-to-gdd] [focus: full|balance|testability|pillar-fit] [swap-role]","user-invocable":true,"allowed-tools":"Read, Glob, Grep"}}]