Imported from claretagrapelike32/codex-ai-game-studio (plugins/ai-game-studio/skills/story-done/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add claretagrapelike32/codex-ai-game-studio --skill story-done. Copyright stays with the author.

Port provenance: adapted from the pinned upstream source at 984023ddac0d5e27624f2baacde6105e45de375f under MIT; see the repository parity ledger for the exact path and blob.

Story Done

This skill closes the loop between design and implementation. Run it at the end of implementing any story. It ensures every acceptance criterion is verified before the story is marked done, GDD and ADR deviations are explicitly documented rather than silently introduced, code review is prompted rather than forgotten, and the story file reflects actual completion status.

Output: Updated story file (Status: Complete) + surfaced next story.

Phase 1: Find the Story

Resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):

1. If --review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use that
2. Else read production/review-mode.txt → use that value
3. Else → default to lean

See the installed Codex role-gate protocol for the full check pattern.

If a file path is provided (e.g., $ai-game-studio:story-done production/epics/core/story-damage-calculator.md): read that file directly.

If no argument is provided:

1. Check production/session-state/active.md for the currently active story.
2. If not found there, read the most recent file in production/sprints/ and look for stories marked IN PROGRESS.
3. If multiple in-progress stories are found, use the available user-input mechanism:
   • "Which story are we completing?"
   • Options: list the in-progress story file names.
4. If no story can be found, ask the user to provide the path.

Phase 2: Read the Story

Read the full story file. Extract and hold in context:

• Story name and ID
• GDD Requirement TR-ID(s) referenced (e.g., TR-combat-001)
• Manifest Version embedded in the story header (e.g., 2026-03-10)
• ADR reference(s) referenced
• Acceptance Criteria — the complete list (every checkbox item)
• Implementation files — files listed under "files to create/modify"
• Story Type — the Type: field from the story header (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data)
• Engine notes — any engine-specific constraints noted
• Definition of Done — if present, the story-level DoD
• Estimated vs actual scope — if an estimate was noted

Also read:

• docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml — look up each TR-ID in the story. Read the current requirement text from the registry entry. This is the source of truth for what the GDD required — do not use any requirement text that may be quoted inline in the story (it may be stale).
• The referenced GDD section — just the acceptance criteria and key rules, not the full document. Use this to cross-check the registry text is still accurate.
• The referenced ADR(s) — just the Decision and Consequences sections
• docs/architecture/control-manifest.md header — extract the current Manifest Version: date (used in Phase 4 staleness check)

Phase 3: Verify Acceptance Criteria

For each acceptance criterion in the story, attempt verification using one of three methods:

Automatic verification (run without asking)

• File existence check: file discovery for files the story said would be created.
• Test pass check: if a test file path is mentioned, run it with the available shell.
• No hardcoded values check: text search for numeric literals in gameplay code paths that should be in config files.
• No hardcoded strings check: text search for player-facing strings in src/ that should be in localization files.
• Dependency check: if a criterion says "depends on X", check that X exists.

Manual verification with confirmation (use the available user-input mechanism)

• Criteria about subjective qualities ("feels responsive", "animations play correctly")
• Criteria about gameplay behaviour ("player takes damage when...", "enemy responds to...")
• Performance criteria ("completes within Xms") — ask if profiled or accept as assumed

Batch up to 4 manual verification questions into a single the available user-input mechanism call:

question: "Does [criterion]?"
options: "Yes — passes", "No — fails", "Not tested yet"

Unverifiable (flag without blocking)

• Criteria that require a full game build to test (end-to-end gameplay scenarios)
• Mark as: DEFERRED — requires playtest session

Test-Criterion Traceability

After completing the pass/fail/deferred check above, map each acceptance criterion to the test that covers it:

For each acceptance criterion in the story:

1. Ask: is there a test — unit, integration, or confirmed manual playtest — that directly verifies this criterion?

   • Unit test: check tests/unit/ for a test file or function name that matches the criterion's subject (use file discovery and text search)
   • Integration test: check tests/integration/ similarly
   • Manual confirmation: if the criterion was verified via the available user-input mechanism above with a "Yes — passes" answer, count that as a manual test

2. Produce a traceability table:

| Criterion | Test | Status |
|-----------|------|--------|
| AC-1: [criterion text] | tests/unit/test_foo.gd::test_bar | COVERED |
| AC-2: [criterion text] | Manual playtest confirmation | COVERED |
| AC-3: [criterion text] | — | UNTESTED |

3. Apply these escalation rules:

   • If >50% of criteria are UNTESTED: escalate to BLOCKING — test coverage is insufficient to confirm the story is actually done. The verdict in Phase 6 cannot be COMPLETE until coverage improves.
   • If some (≤50%) criteria are UNTESTED: remain ADVISORY — does not block completion, but must appear in Completion Notes.
   • If all criteria are COVERED: no action needed beyond including the table in the report.

4. For any ADVISORY untested criteria, add to the Completion Notes in Phase 7: "Untested criteria: [AC-N list]. Recommend adding tests in a follow-up story."

Test Evidence Requirement

Based on the Story Type extracted in Phase 2, check for required evidence:

For Logic stories: first read the story's Test Evidence section to extract the exact required file path. Use file discovery to check that exact path. If the exact path is not found, also search tests/unit/[system]/ broadly (the file may have been placed at a slightly different location). If no test file is found at either location:

• Flag as BLOCKING: "Logic story has no unit test file. Story requires it at [exact-path-from-Test-Evidence-section]. Create and run the test before marking this story Complete."

For Integration stories: read the story's Test Evidence section for the exact required path. Use file discovery to check that exact path first, then search tests/integration/[system]/ broadly, then check production/session-logs/ for a playtest record referencing this story. If none found: flag as BLOCKING (same rule as Logic).

For Visual/Feel and UI stories: glob production/qa/evidence/ for a file referencing this story.

• If none: flag as ADVISORY — "No manual test evidence found. Create production/qa/evidence/[story-slug]-evidence.md using the test-evidence template and obtain sign-off before final closure."
• If found: read the file and check the sign-off table for unchecked boxes. text search for lines matching | .* | .* | .* | \[ \] Approved (a sign-off row with an unchecked checkbox). If any unchecked sign-off rows are found: flag as ADVISORY — "Evidence file found at [path] but [N] sign-off(s) are still pending (shown as [ ] Approved in the sign-off table). Obtain required sign-offs before final closure. Note: for solo developers, all roles may be signed off by the same person."
• If all sign-off rows show [x] Approved or equivalent: note "Evidence file found and all sign-offs complete — ADVISORY passed."

For Config/Data stories: check for any production/qa/smoke-*.md file. If none: flag as ADVISORY — "No smoke check report found. Run $ai-game-studio:smoke-check."

If no Story Type is set: flag as ADVISORY — "Story Type not declared. Add Type: [Logic|Integration|Visual/Feel|UI|Config/Data] to the story header to enable test evidence gate enforcement in future stories."

Any BLOCKING test evidence gap prevents the COMPLETE verdict in Phase 6.

Phase 4: Check for Deviations

Compare the implementation against the design documents.

Run these checks automatically:

1. GDD rules check: Using the current requirement text from tr-registry.yaml (looked up by the story's TR-ID), check that the implementation reflects what the GDD actually requires now — not what it required when the story was written. text search the implemented files for key function names, data structures, or class names mentioned in the current GDD section.

2. Manifest version staleness check: Compare the Manifest Version: date embedded in the story header against the Manifest Version: date in the current docs/architecture/control-manifest.md header.

   • If they match → pass silently.
   • If the story's version is older → flag as ADVISORY: ADVISORY: Story was written against manifest v[story-date]; current manifest is v[current-date]. New rules may apply. Run $ai-game-studio:story-readiness to check.
   • If control-manifest.md does not exist → skip this check.

3. ADR constraints check: Read the referenced ADR's Decision section. Check for forbidden patterns from docs/architecture/control-manifest.md (if it exists). text search for patterns explicitly forbidden in the ADR.

4. Hardcoded values check: text search the implemented files for numeric literals in gameplay logic that should be in data files.

5. Scope check: Did the implementation touch files outside the story's stated scope? (files not listed in "files to create/modify")

For each deviation found, categorize:

• BLOCKING — implementation contradicts the GDD or ADR (must fix before marking complete)
• ADVISORY — implementation drifts slightly from spec but is functionally equivalent (document, user decides)
• OUT OF SCOPE — additional files were touched beyond the story's stated boundary (flag for awareness — may be valid or scope creep)

Phase 4b: QA Coverage Gate

Review mode check — apply before spawning QL-TEST-COVERAGE:

• solo → skip. Note: "QL-TEST-COVERAGE skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 5.
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "QL-TEST-COVERAGE skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 5.
• full → spawn as normal.

After completing the deviation checks in Phase 4, spawn qa-lead with a Codex subagent using gate QL-TEST-COVERAGE (the installed Codex role-gate protocol).

Pass:

• The story file path and story type
• Test file paths found during Phase 3 (exact paths, or "none found")
• The story's ## QA Test Cases section (the pre-written test specs from story creation)
• The story's ## Acceptance Criteria list

The qa-lead reviews whether the tests actually cover what was specified — not just whether files exist.

Apply the verdict:

• ADEQUATE → proceed to Phase 5
• GAPS → flag as ADVISORY: "QA lead identified coverage gaps: [list]. Story can complete but gaps should be addressed in a follow-up story."
• INADEQUATE → flag as BLOCKING: "QA lead: critical logic is untested. Verdict cannot be COMPLETE until coverage improves. Specific gaps: [list]."

Skip this phase for Config/Data stories (no code tests required).

Phase 5: Lead Programmer Code Review Gate

Review mode check — apply before spawning LP-CODE-REVIEW:

• solo → skip. Note: "LP-CODE-REVIEW skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 6 (completion report).
• lean → use the available user-input mechanism before proceeding:
  • Prompt: "Code review is skipped in lean mode. Did you run $ai-game-studio:code-review on the implemented files?"
  • Options:
    • Yes — $ai-game-studio:code-review passed or was approved with suggestions
    • No — skipping code review for this story
    • No — I'll run $ai-game-studio:code-review before the sprint close-out
  • Record the answer in the completion notes (Phase 7). All three options proceed to Phase 6.
• full → spawn as normal.

Spawn lead-programmer with a Codex subagent using gate LP-CODE-REVIEW (the installed Codex role-gate protocol).

Pass: implementation file paths, story file path, relevant GDD section, governing ADR.

Present the verdict to the user. If CONCERNS, surface them via the available user-input mechanism:

• Options: Revise flagged issues / Accept and proceed / Discuss further If REJECT, do not proceed to Phase 6 verdict until the issues are resolved.

If the story has no implementation files yet (verdict is being run before coding is done), skip this phase and note: "LP-CODE-REVIEW skipped — no implementation files found. Run after implementation is complete."

Phase 6: Present the Completion Report

Before updating any files, present the full report:

## Story Done: [Story Name]
**Story**: [file path]
**Date**: [today]

### Acceptance Criteria: [X/Y passing]
- [x] [Criterion 1] — auto-verified (test passes)
- [x] [Criterion 2] — confirmed
- [ ] [Criterion 3] — FAILS: [reason]
- [?] [Criterion 4] — DEFERRED: requires playtest

### Test-Criterion Traceability
| Criterion | Test | Status |
|-----------|------|--------|
| AC-1: [text] | [test file::test name] | COVERED |
| AC-2: [text] | Manual confirmation | COVERED |
| AC-3: [text] | — | UNTESTED |

### Test Evidence
**Story Type**: [Logic | Integration | Visual/Feel | UI | Config/Data | Not declared]
**Required evidence**: [unit test file | integration test or playtest | screenshot + sign-off | walkthrough doc | smoke check pass]
**Evidence found**: [YES — `[path]` | NO — BLOCKING | NO — ADVISORY]

### Deviations
[NONE] OR:
- BLOCKING: [description] — [GDD/ADR reference]
- ADVISORY: [description] — user accepted / flagged for tech debt

### Scope
[All changes within stated scope] OR:
- Extra files touched: [list] — [note whether valid or scope creep]

### Verdict: COMPLETE / COMPLETE WITH NOTES / BLOCKED

Verdict definitions:

• COMPLETE: all criteria pass, no blocking deviations
• COMPLETE WITH NOTES: all criteria pass, advisory deviations documented
• BLOCKED: failing criteria or blocking deviations must be resolved first

If the verdict is BLOCKED: do not proceed to Phase 7. List what must be fixed. Offer to help fix the blocking items.

Phase 7: Update Story Status

Use the available user-input mechanism before writing anything:

• Prompt: "Verification complete. How do you want to proceed?"
• Options:
  • Close the story — update file, mark Complete, log notes (Recommended)
  • Close and log advisory deviations as tech debt in docs/tech-debt-register.md
  • There are issues I want to fix first — don't close yet
  • Accept deviations as-is and close anyway

If "Close", "Close and log tech debt", or "Accept deviations": edit the story file. If "Close and log tech debt": after updating the story file, also append the advisory deviations to docs/tech-debt-register.md (create the file if it does not exist). If "Fix first": stop here and list what the user flagged. Do not write any files.

1. Update the status field: Status: Complete
2. Update the Last Updated: field in the story header to today's date (format: YYYY-MM-DD). If the field does not exist, add it after the Status: line.
3. Add a ## Completion Notes section at the bottom:

## Completion Notes
**Completed**: [date]
**Criteria**: [X/Y passing] ([any deferred items listed])
**Deviations**: [None] or [list of advisory deviations]
**Test Evidence**: [Logic: test file at path | Visual/Feel: evidence doc at path | None required (Config/Data)]
**Code Review**: [Pending / Complete / Skipped]

4. If the user chose "Close and log tech debt": append each advisory deviation to docs/tech-debt-register.md in this format:

   - **[date]** ([story title]): [deviation description] — tracked from [story file path]
   

   Create the file with a # Tech Debt Register heading if it does not exist.

5. Update production/sprint-status.yaml (if it exists):

   • Find the entry matching this story's file path or ID
   • Set status: done and completed: [today's date]
   • Update the top-level updated field
   • This is a silent update — no extra approval needed (already approved in step above)

6. Suggest a git commit: Output a ready-to-use commit command covering the implementation files from the dev-story summary and the updated story file:

Suggested commit:
git add [src/ and tests/ files changed during implementation] [story-file-path]
git commit -m "feat: [story title] ([TR-ID])"

The validate-commit.sh hook will verify design doc references and check for hardcoded values automatically.

Session State Update

After updating the story file, silently append to production/session-state/active.md:

## Session Extract — $ai-game-studio:story-done [date]
- Verdict: [COMPLETE / COMPLETE WITH NOTES / BLOCKED]
- Story: [story file path] — [story title]
- Tech debt logged: [N items, or "None"]
- Next recommended: [next ready story title and path, or "None identified"]

If active.md does not exist, create it with this block as the initial content. Confirm in conversation: "Session state updated."

Phase 8: Surface the Next Story

After completion, help the developer keep momentum:

1. Read the current sprint plan from production/sprints/.
2. Find stories that are:
   • Status: READY or NOT STARTED
   • Not blocked by other incomplete stories
   • In the Must Have or Should Have tier

Present:

### Next Up
The following stories are ready to pick up:
1. [Story name] — [1-line description] — Est: [X hrs]
2. [Story name] — [1-line description] — Est: [X hrs]

Run `$ai-game-studio:story-readiness [path]` to confirm a story is implementation-ready
before starting.

If no more Must Have stories remain in this sprint (all are Complete or Blocked):

### Sprint Close-Out Sequence

All Must Have stories are complete. QA sign-off is required before advancing.
Run these in order:

1. `$ai-game-studio:smoke-check sprint` — verify the critical path still works end-to-end
2. `$ai-game-studio:team-qa sprint` — full QA cycle: test case execution, bug triage, sign-off report
3. `$ai-game-studio:retrospective` — capture what went well, what didn't, and action items for the next sprint
4. `$ai-game-studio:gate-check` — advance to the next phase once QA approves (only if advancing a phase)
5. `$ai-game-studio:sprint-plan new` — plan the next sprint, incorporating velocity data and retrospective action items

Do not run `$ai-game-studio:gate-check` until `$ai-game-studio:team-qa` returns APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

If there are Should Have stories still unstarted, surface them alongside the close-out sequence so the user can choose: close the sprint now, or pull in more work first.

If no more stories are ready but Must Have stories are still In Progress (not Complete): "No more stories ready to start — [N] Must Have stories still in progress. Continue implementing those before sprint close-out."

Collaborative Protocol

• Never mark a story complete without user approval — Phase 7 requires an explicit "yes" before any file is edited.
• Never auto-fix failing criteria — report them and ask what to do.
• Deviations are facts, not judgments — present them neutrally; the user decides if they are acceptable.
• BLOCKED verdict is advisory — the user can override and mark complete anyway; document the risk explicitly if they do.
• Use the available user-input mechanism for the code review prompt and for batching manual criteria confirmations.

Recommended Next Steps

• Run $ai-game-studio:story-readiness [next-story-path] to validate the next story before starting implementation
• If all Must Have stories are complete: run $ai-game-studio:smoke-check sprint → $ai-game-studio:team-qa sprint → $ai-game-studio:gate-check
• If tech debt was logged: track it via $ai-game-studio:tech-debt to keep the register current

Codex portability

Use the search, file-editing, shell, user-input, and subagent capabilities available in the active Codex surface. Use PowerShell syntax on Windows and POSIX syntax on macOS/Linux; do not require a Unix compatibility layer on Windows. Inherit the active model and permission mode, and do not weaken approval or sandbox boundaries.