Map Systems

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

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). In collaborative mode the system list, dependency, priority and write approvals are separate questions: each waits for its answer before the next step runs.

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 (the default, via rigor: minimal) = one-line system descriptions; balanced = a brief paragraph per system + dependency notes (rigor: standard); 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 graph (each system → what it depends on), layer assignments, bottleneck systems, and any circular dependencies with their proposed resolutions.

Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system boundaries with the user, show the revised dependency map, and only then move to priority assignment. If CONCERNS, note them inline in the systems index and continue. If NOT ASSESSED [missing input], it is not an APPROVE: name what was missing, then supply it and re-run the gate, or continue with TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY: NOT ASSESSED — [input] noted in the index draft.

---

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 Step 4c.
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-SCOPE skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Step 4c.
• 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 the gate's fields from the index: the full vision scope (every system in the index), the MVP definition (the MVP tier's systems), the scope tiers (system count per milestone tier, with estimated implementation volume — system count × average complexity), the stated project timeline as the timeline estimate, and team size.

Present the assessment. PR-SCOPE answers REALISTIC / OPTIMISTIC / UNREALISTIC. If UNREALISTIC, offer to revise priority tier assignments before writing the index. If OPTIMISTIC, show the producer's suggested adjustments and ask whether to apply them to the tiers before writing; if the user declines, note them and continue. If NOT ASSESSED [missing input] — often the team size or timeline — it is not a REALISTIC: name what was missing, then supply it and re-run the gate, or continue with PR-SCOPE: NOT ASSESSED — [input] noted in the index draft.