Sprint Plan

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

Phase 0: Parse Arguments

Extract the mode argument (new, update, or status) and 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.

Review mode check (before gates run):

• Read production/review-mode.txt if it exists. Use that mode.
• If the file doesn't exist and this is a new sprint: use the available user-input mechanism:
  • Prompt: "No review mode is set. Which review depth would you like for this sprint?"
  • Options:
    • [A] full — spawn all director and lead gates
    • [B] lean — skip non-phase-gate director reviews (recommended for most sprints)
    • [C] solo — skip all gate spawning
  • After selection: write production/review-mode.txt with the chosen mode. Say: "Review mode set to [mode] and saved to production/review-mode.txt."
• If the file doesn't exist and this is NOT a new sprint (e.g., updating an existing sprint): default to lean silently.

Phase 1: Gather Context

1. Read the current milestone from production/milestones/.

2. Read the previous sprint (if any) from production/sprints/ to understand velocity and carryover.

3. Scan design documents in design/gdd/ for features tagged as ready for implementation.

4. Check the risk register at production/risk-register/.

Phase 2: Generate Output

For new:

Generate a sprint plan following this format and present it to the user. Do NOT ask to write yet — the producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) runs first and may require revisions before the file is written.

# Sprint [N] — [Start Date] to [End Date]

## Sprint Goal
[One sentence describing what this sprint achieves toward the milestone]

## Capacity
- Total days: [X]
- Buffer (20%): [Y days reserved for unplanned work]
- Available: [Z days]

## Tasks

### Must Have (Critical Path)
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|

### Should Have
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|

### Nice to Have
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|

## Carryover from Previous Sprint
| Task | Reason | New Estimate |
|------|--------|-------------|

## Risks
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|

## Dependencies on External Factors
- [List any external dependencies]

## Definition of Done for this Sprint
- [ ] All Must Have tasks completed
- [ ] All tasks pass acceptance criteria
- [ ] QA plan exists (`production/qa/qa-plan-sprint-[N].md`)
- [ ] All Logic/Integration stories have passing unit/integration tests
- [ ] Smoke check passed (`$ai-game-studio:smoke-check sprint`)
- [ ] QA sign-off report: APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (`$ai-game-studio:team-qa sprint`)
- [ ] No S1 or S2 bugs in delivered features
- [ ] Design documents updated for any deviations
- [ ] Code reviewed and merged

For update:

Update an existing sprint plan:

1. Read the most recent sprint plan from production/sprints/.
2. Present the current story list with their current statuses from production/sprint-status.yaml.
3. Ask the user what to change: stories to add, remove, reprioritize, or re-estimate. Use the available user-input mechanism to gather changes.
4. Apply the changes and re-present the full revised plan for review.
5. Re-run the producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) on the revised plan.
6. Write the updated markdown plan and yaml together (same approval as new mode).

Note: update mode does not reset story statuses. Stories already marked in-progress or done keep their status. Only backlog and ready-for-dev stories can be removed or reprioritized freely.

For status:

Generate a status report:

# Sprint [N] Status -- [Date]

## Progress: [X/Y tasks complete] ([Z%])

### Completed
| Task | Completed By | Notes |
|------|-------------|-------|

### In Progress
| Task | Owner | % Done | Blockers |
|------|-------|--------|----------|

### Not Started
| Task | Owner | At Risk? | Notes |
|------|-------|----------|-------|

### Blocked
| Task | Blocker | Owner of Blocker | ETA |
|------|---------|-----------------|-----|

## Burndown Assessment
[On track / Behind / Ahead]
[If behind: What is being cut or deferred]

## Emerging Risks
- [Any new risks identified this sprint]

Phase 3: Prepare Sprint Status File

After generating a new sprint plan, also prepare the production/sprint-status.yaml content. This is the machine-readable source of truth for story status — read by $ai-game-studio:sprint-status, $ai-game-studio:story-done, and $ai-game-studio:help without markdown parsing.

Do not write the yaml yet — hold it in context. The producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) may revise the story list. Both files will be written together after Phase 4 in a single write approval.

Format:

# Auto-generated by $ai-game-studio:sprint-plan. Updated by $ai-game-studio:story-done and $ai-game-studio:dev-story.
# DO NOT edit manually — use $ai-game-studio:story-done to update story status.
#
# Status value mapping (yaml ↔ story file Status field):
#   backlog        ↔  Not Started
#   ready-for-dev  ↔  Ready
#   in-progress    ↔  In Progress
#   review         ↔  In Review
#   done           ↔  Complete
#   blocked        ↔  Blocked

sprint: [N]
goal: "[sprint goal]"
start: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
end: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
generated: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
updated: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"

stories:
  - id: "[epic-story, e.g. 1-1]"
    name: "[story name]"
    file: "[production/stories/path.md]"
    priority: must-have        # must-have | should-have | nice-to-have
    status: ready-for-dev      # backlog | ready-for-dev | in-progress | review | done | blocked
    owner: ""
    estimate_days: 0
    blocker: ""
    completed: ""

Initialize each story from the sprint plan's task tables:

• Must Have tasks → priority: must-have, status: ready-for-dev
• Should Have tasks → priority: should-have, status: backlog
• Nice to Have tasks → priority: nice-to-have, status: backlog

For update: read the existing sprint-status.yaml, carry over statuses for stories that haven't changed, add new stories, remove dropped ones.

Phase 4: Producer Feasibility Gate

Review mode check — apply before spawning PR-SPRINT:

• solo → skip. Note: "PR-SPRINT skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 5 (QA plan gate).
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-SPRINT skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 5 (QA plan gate).
• full → spawn as normal.

Before finalising the sprint plan, spawn producer with a Codex subagent using gate PR-SPRINT (the installed Codex role-gate protocol).

Pass: proposed story list (titles, estimates, dependencies), total team capacity in hours/days, any carryover from the previous sprint, milestone constraints and deadline.

Present the producer's assessment.

If UNREALISTIC: revise the story selection (defer stories to Should Have or Nice to Have) and re-present the updated plan before asking for write approval.

If CONCERNS, use the available user-input mechanism:

• Prompt: "Producer flagged concerns with this sprint plan. How do you want to proceed?"
• Options:
  • [A] Proceed as planned — I accept the risk
  • [B] Adjust scope — defer some Should Have stories
  • [C] Extend the sprint timeline

If [A]: proceed to write approval. If [B]: revise the story list, re-present the updated plan, then proceed to write approval. If [C]: adjust sprint dates and capacity, re-present the updated plan, then proceed to write approval.

After handling the producer's verdict, ask: "May I write the sprint plan to production/sprints/sprint-[N].md and production/sprint-status.yaml?" If yes, write both files (creating directories as needed). Verdict: COMPLETE — sprint plan and status file created. If no: Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.

After writing, add:

Scope check: If this sprint includes stories added beyond the original epic scope, run $ai-game-studio:scope-check [epic] to detect scope creep before implementation begins.

Phase 5: QA Plan Gate

Before closing the sprint plan, check whether a QA plan exists for this sprint.

Use file discovery to look for production/qa/qa-plan-sprint-[N].md or any file in production/qa/ referencing this sprint number.

If a QA plan is found: note it in the sprint plan output — "QA Plan: [path]" — and proceed.

If no QA plan exists: do not silently proceed. Surface this explicitly:

"This sprint has no QA plan. A sprint plan without a QA plan means test requirements are undefined — developers won't know what 'done' looks like from a QA perspective, and the sprint cannot pass the Production → Polish gate without one.

Run $ai-game-studio:qa-plan sprint now, before starting any implementation. It takes one session and produces the test case requirements each story needs."

Use the available user-input mechanism:

• Prompt: "No QA plan found for this sprint. How do you want to proceed?"
• Options:
  • [A] Run $ai-game-studio:qa-plan sprint now — I'll do that before starting implementation (Recommended)
  • [B] Skip for now — I understand QA sign-off will be blocked at the Production → Polish gate

If [A]: close with "Sprint plan written. Run $ai-game-studio:qa-plan sprint next — then begin implementation." If [B]: add a warning block to the sprint plan document:

> ⚠️ **No QA Plan**: This sprint was started without a QA plan. Run `$ai-game-studio:qa-plan sprint`
> before the last story is implemented. The Production → Polish gate requires a QA
> sign-off report, which requires a QA plan.

Phase 6: Next Steps

After the sprint plan is written and QA plan status is resolved:

• $ai-game-studio:qa-plan sprint — required before implementation begins — defines test cases per story so developers implement against QA specs, not a blank slate
• $ai-game-studio:story-readiness [story-file] — validate a story is ready before starting it
• $ai-game-studio:dev-story [story-file] — begin implementing the first story
• $ai-game-studio:sprint-status — check progress mid-sprint
• $ai-game-studio:scope-check [epic] — verify no scope creep before implementation begins

Review mode configuration: All director gates (producer feasibility, QA review, code review) respect the project review mode. The review mode is set in Phase 0 when the file does not exist (for new sprints), or can be overridden per-run with --review full|lean|solo as an argument. The file production/review-mode.txt contains one of:

• lean — skip automated director gates (default if file is absent — fastest for solo dev)
• full — run all director gates as spawned sub-agents
• solo — skip all gates unconditionally (single-developer, no review)

This file is read by $ai-game-studio:sprint-plan, $ai-game-studio:story-readiness, $ai-game-studio:story-done, and other skills at startup.

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.