Design Review

是什么

帮你在把设计文档（PRD/PRP/GDD 等产品需求与设计稿）交给研发之前，先做一次八维度体检：完整性、内一致性、可实现性、是否符合团队规范。把"模糊的设计稿"变成"工程师拿到就能动手的交付物"。

怎么用

1. 在每次评审会前，把待审的设计文档路径喂给这个技能，让它先跑一遍自动体检。
2. 拿到八个维度的红黄绿评分后，先看红灯项，那是工程师最容易卡住的地方。
3. 把"内一致性问题"清单贴到评审会议纪要里，逐条和设计、研发对齐口径。
4. 修订完文档后，再跑一次，确保所有红灯转绿，再走交付流程。
5. 把发现的高频缺漏沉淀到团队的设计文档模板里，让下一次起草时就不再犯。

架构图

flowchart LR
  A[设计文档草稿] --> B[八维度体检]
  B --> C[内一致性检查]
  C --> D[红黄绿评分]
  D --> E[交付前评审报告]

When this skill is invoked:

1. Read the target design document in full.

2. Read the master CLAUDE.md to understand project context and standards.

3. Read related design documents referenced or implied by the target doc (check design/gdd/ for related systems).

4. Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist:

   • Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary)
   • Has Player Fantasy section (intended feeling)
   • Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics)
   • Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables)
   • Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled)
   • Has Dependencies section (other systems listed)
   • Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified)
   • Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions)

5. Check for internal consistency:

   • Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?
   • Do edge cases contradict the main rules?
   • Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)?

6. Check for implementability:

   • Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing?
   • Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing?
   • Are performance implications considered?

7. Check for cross-system consistency:

   • Does this conflict with any existing mechanic?
   • Does this create unintended interactions with other systems?
   • Is this consistent with the game's established tone and pillars?

8. Output the review in this format:

## Design Review: [Document Title]

### Completeness: [X/8 sections present]
[List missing sections]

### Consistency Issues
[List any internal or cross-system contradictions]

### Implementability Concerns
[List any vague or unimplementable sections]

### Balance Concerns
[List any obvious balance risks]

### Recommendations
[Prioritized list of improvements]

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

9. Contextual next step recommendations:
   • If the document being reviewed is game-concept.md or game-pillars.md:
     • Check if design/gdd/systems-index.md exists
     • If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:

       "This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run /map-systems to break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities, then write per-system GDDs."

   • If the document is an individual system GDD:
     • Check if the systems index references this system
     • If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'Approved'."
     • If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'."
     • Note: This skill is read-only. The user (or /design-system) must perform the actual status update in the systems index.