Guided, section-by-section authoring of the master architecture document for the game. Reads all GDDs, the systems index, existing ADRs, and the engine reference library to produce a complete architecture blueprint before any code is written. Engine-version-aware: flags knowledge gaps and validates decisions against the pinned engine version.
This skill produces docs/architecture/architecture.md — the master architecture
document that translates all approved GDDs into a concrete technical blueprint.
It sits between design and implementation, and must exist before sprint planning begins.
Distinct from /architecture-decision: ADRs record individual point decisions.
This skill creates the whole-system blueprint that gives ADRs their context.
Resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):
--review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use thatproduction/review-mode.txt → use that valueleanSee .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern.
Argument modes:
full: Full guided walkthrough — all sections, start to finishlayers: Focus on the system layer diagram onlydata-flow: Focus on data flow between modules onlyapi-boundaries: Focus on API boundary definitions onlyadr-audit: Audit existing ADRs for engine compatibility gaps onlyBefore anything else, load the full project context in this order:
Read the engine reference library completely:
docs/engine-reference/[engine]/VERSION.md
→ Extract: engine name, version, LLM cutoff, post-cutoff risk levelsdocs/engine-reference/[engine]/breaking-changes.md
→ Extract: all HIGH and MEDIUM risk changesdocs/engine-reference/[engine]/deprecated-apis.md
→ Extract: APIs to avoiddocs/engine-reference/[engine]/current-best-practices.md
→ Extract: post-cutoff best practices that differ from training datadocs/engine-reference/[engine]/modules/
→ Extract: current API patterns per domainIf no engine is configured, stop and prompt:
"No engine is configured. Run
/setup-enginefirst. Architecture cannot be written without knowing which engine and version you are targeting."
Read all approved design documents and extract technical requirements from each:
design/gdd/game-concept.md — game pillars, genre, core loopdesign/gdd/systems-index.md — all systems, dependencies, priority tiers.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md — naming conventions, performance budgets,
allowed libraries, forbidden patternsdesign/gdd/ — for each, extract technical requirements:
Build a Technical Requirements Baseline — a flat list of all extracted
requirements across all GDDs, numbered TR-[gdd-slug]-[NNN]. This is the
complete set of what the architecture must cover. Present it as:
## Technical Requirements Baseline
Extracted from [N] GDDs | [X] total requirements
| Req ID | GDD | System | Requirement | Domain |
|--------|-----|--------|-------------|--------|
| TR-combat-001 | combat.md | Combat | Hitbox detection per-frame | Physics |
| TR-combat-002 | combat.md | Combat | Combo state machine | Core |
| TR-inventory-001 | inventory.md | Inventory | Item persistence | Save/Load |
This baseline feeds into every subsequent phase. No GDD requirement should be left without an architectural decision to support it by the end of this session.
Read all files in docs/architecture/ to understand what has already been decided.
List any ADRs found and their domains.
Before proceeding, display a structured summary:
## Engine Knowledge Gap Inventory
Engine: [name + version]
LLM Training Covers: up to approximately [version]
Post-Cutoff Versions: [list]
### HIGH RISK Domains (must verify against engine reference before deciding)
- [Domain]: [Key changes]
### MEDIUM RISK Domains (verify key APIs)
- [Domain]: [Key changes]
### LOW RISK Domains (in training data, likely reliable)
- [Domain]: [no significant post-cutoff changes]
### Systems from GDD that touch HIGH/MEDIUM risk domains:
- [GDD system name] → [domain] → [risk level]
Ask: "This inventory identifies [N] systems in HIGH RISK engine domains. Shall I continue building the architecture with these warnings flagged throughout?"
Map every system from systems-index.md into an architecture layer. The standard
game architecture layers are:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PRESENTATION LAYER │ ← UI, HUD, menus, VFX, audio
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ FEATURE LAYER │ ← gameplay systems, AI, quests
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ CORE LAYER │ ← physics, input, combat, movement
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ FOUNDATION LAYER │ ← engine integration, save/load,
│ │ scene management, event bus
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ PLATFORM LAYER │ ← OS, hardware, engine API surface
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
For each GDD system, ask:
Present the proposed layer assignment and ask for approval before proceeding to the next section. Write the approved layer map immediately to the skeleton file.
Engine awareness check: For each system assigned to the Core and Foundation layers, flag if it touches a HIGH or MEDIUM risk engine domain. Show the relevant engine reference excerpt inline.
For each module defined in Phase 1, define ownership:
Format as a table per layer, then as an ASCII dependency diagram.
Engine awareness check: For every engine API listed, verify against the relevant module reference doc. If an API is post-cutoff, flag it:
⚠️ [ClassName.method()] — Godot 4.6 (post-cutoff, HIGH risk)
Verified against: docs/engine-reference/godot/modules/[domain].md
Behaviour confirmed: [yes / NEEDS VERIFICATION]
Get user approval on the ownership map before writing.
Define how data moves between modules during key game scenarios. Cover at minimum:
Use ASCII sequence diagrams where helpful. For each data flow:
Get user approval per scenario before writing.
Define the public contracts between modules. For each boundary:
Write in pseudocode or the project's actual language (from technical preferences). These become the contracts programmers implement against.
Engine awareness check: If any interface uses engine-specific types (e.g.
Node, Resource, Signal in Godot), flag the version and verify the type
exists and has not changed signature in the target engine version.
Review all existing ADRs from Phase 0c against both the architecture built in Phases 1-4 AND the Technical Requirements Baseline from Phase 0b.
For each ADR:
| ADR | Engine Compat | Version | GDD Linkage | Conflicts | Valid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADR-0001: [title] | ✅/❌ | ✅/❌ | ✅/❌ | None/[conflict] | ✅/⚠️ |
Map every requirement from the Technical Requirements Baseline to existing ADRs. For each requirement, check if any ADR's "GDD Requirements Addressed" section or decision text covers it:
| Req ID | Requirement | ADR Coverage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR-combat-001 | Hitbox detection per-frame | ADR-0003 | ✅ |
| TR-combat-002 | Combo state machine | — | ❌ GAP |
Count: X covered, Y gaps. For each gap, it becomes a Required New ADR.
List all decisions made during this architecture session (Phases 1-4) that do not yet have a corresponding ADR, PLUS all uncovered Technical Requirements. Group by layer — Foundation first:
Foundation Layer (must create before any coding):
/architecture-decision [title] → covers: TR-[id], TR-[id]Core Layer:
/architecture-decision [title] → covers: TR-[id]Based on the full architecture, produce a complete list of ADRs that should exist but don't yet. Group by priority:
Must have before coding starts (Foundation & Core decisions):
Should have before the relevant system is built:
Can defer to implementation:
Once all sections are approved, write the complete document to
docs/architecture/architecture.md.
Ask: "May I write the master architecture document to docs/architecture/architecture.md?"
The document structure:
# [Game Name] — Master Architecture
## Document Status
- Version: [N]
- Last Updated: [date]
- Engine: [name + version]
- GDDs Covered: [list]
- ADRs Referenced: [list]
## Engine Knowledge Gap Summary
[Condensed from Phase 0d inventory — HIGH/MEDIUM risk domains and their implications]
## System Layer Map
[From Phase 1]
## Module Ownership
[From Phase 2]
## Data Flow
[From Phase 3]
## API Boundaries
[From Phase 4]
## ADR Audit
[From Phase 5]
## Required ADRs
[From Phase 6]
## Architecture Principles
[3-5 key principles that govern all technical decisions for this project,
derived from the game concept, GDDs, and technical preferences]
## Open Questions
[Decisions deferred — must be resolved before the relevant layer is built]
After writing the master architecture document, perform an explicit sign-off before handoff.
Step 1 — Technical Director self-review (this skill runs as technical-director):
Apply gate TD-ARCHITECTURE (.claude/docs/director-gates.md) as a self-review. Check all four criteria from that gate definition against the completed document.
Review mode check — apply before spawning LP-FEASIBILITY:
solo → skip. Note: "LP-FEASIBILITY skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 8 handoff.lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "LP-FEASIBILITY skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 8 handoff.full → spawn as normal.Step 2 — Spawn lead-programmer via Task using gate LP-FEASIBILITY (.claude/docs/director-gates.md):
Pass: architecture document path, technical requirements baseline summary, ADR list.
Step 3 — Present both assessments to the user:
Show the Technical Director assessment and Lead Programmer verdict side by side.
Use AskUserQuestion — "Technical Director and Lead Programmer have reviewed the architecture. How would you like to proceed?"
Options: Accept — proceed to handoff / Revise flagged items first / Discuss specific concerns
Step 4 — Record sign-off in the architecture document:
Update the Document Status section:
- Technical Director Sign-Off: [date] — APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
- Lead Programmer Feasibility: FEASIBLE / CONCERNS ACCEPTED / REVISED
Ask: "May I update the Document Status section in docs/architecture/architecture.md with the sign-off?"
After writing the document, provide a clear handoff:
/gate-check pre-production when all required ADRs are also written."production/session-state/active.mdThis skill follows the collaborative design principle at every phase:
Never make a binding architectural decision without user input. If the user is unsure, present 2-4 options with pros/cons before asking them to decide.
/architecture-decision [title] for each required ADR listed in Phase 6 — Foundation layer ADRs first/create-control-manifest once the required ADRs are written to produce the layer rules manifest/gate-check pre-production when all required ADRs are written and the architecture is signed off