/day-one-patch

name: day-one-patch
description: "Prepare a day-one patch for a game launch. Scopes, prioritises, implements, and QA-gates a focused patch addressing known issues discovered after gold master but before or immediately after public launch. Treats the patch as a mini-sprint with its own QA gate and rollback plan."
argument-hint: "[scope: known-bugs | cert-feedback | all]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Task, AskUserQuestion
model: sonnet

Day-One Patch

Every shipped game has a day-one patch. Planning it before launch day prevents chaos. This skill scopes the patch to only what is safe and necessary, gates it through a lightweight QA pass, and ensures a rollback plan exists before anything ships. It is a mini-sprint — not a hotfix, not a full sprint.

**When to run:**

• After the gold master build is locked (cert approved or launch candidate tagged)
• When known bugs exist that are too risky to address in the gold master
• When cert feedback requires minor fixes post-submission
• When a pre-launch playtest surfaces must-fix issues after the release gate passed

**Day-one patch scope rules:**

• Only P1/P2 bugs that are SAFE to fix quickly
• No new features — this is fix-only
• No refactoring — minimum viable change
• Any fix that requires more than 4 hours of dev time belongs in patch 1.1, not day-one

**Output:** `production/releases/day-one-patch-[version].md`

---

Phase 1: Load Release Context

Read:

• `production/stage.txt` — confirm project is in Release stage
• The most recent file in `production/gate-checks/` — read the release gate verdict
• `production/qa/bugs/*.md` — load all bugs with Status: Open or Fixed — Pending Verification
• `production/sprints/` most recent — understand what shipped
• `production/security/security-audit-*.md` most recent — check for any open security items

If `production/stage.txt` is not `Release` or `Polish`: > "Day-one patch prep is for Release-stage projects. Current stage: [stage]. This skill is not appropriate until you are approaching launch."

---

Phase 2: Scope the Patch

Step 2a — Classify open bugs for patch inclusion

For each open bug, evaluate:

| Criterion | Include in day-one? | |-----------|-------------------| | S1 or S2 severity | Yes — must include if safe to fix | | P1 priority | Yes | | Fix estimated < 4 hours | Yes | | Fix requires architecture change | No — defer to 1.1 | | Fix introduces new code paths | No — too risky | | Fix is data/config only (no code change) | Yes — very low risk | | Cert feedback requirement | Yes — required for platform approval | | S3/S4 severity | Only if trivial config fix; otherwise defer |

Step 2b — Present patch scope to user

Use `AskUserQuestion`:

• Prompt: "Based on open bugs and cert feedback, here is the proposed day-one patch scope. Does this look right?"
• Show: table of included bugs (ID, severity, description, estimated effort)
• Show: table of deferred bugs (ID, severity, reason deferred)
• Options: `[A] Approve this scope` / `[B] Adjust — I want to add or remove items` / `[C] No day-one patch needed`

If [C]: output "No day-one patch required. Proceed to `/launch-checklist`." Stop.

Step 2c — Check total scope

Sum estimated effort. If total exceeds 1 day of work: > "⚠️ Patch scope is [N hours] — this exceeds a safe day-one window. Consider deferring lower-priority items to patch 1.1. A bloated day-one patch introduces more risk than it removes."

Use `AskUserQuestion` to confirm proceeding or reduce scope.

---

Phase 3: Rollback Plan

Before any code is written, define the rollback procedure. This is non-negotiable.

Spawn `release-manager` via Task. Ask them to produce a rollback plan covering:

• How to revert to the gold master build on each target platform
• Platform-specific rollback constraints (some platforms cannot roll back cert builds)
• Who is responsible for triggering the rollback
• What player communication is required if a rollback occurs

Present the rollback plan. Ask: "May I write this rollback plan to `production/releases/rollback-plan-[version].md`?"

Do not proceed to Phase 4 until the rollback plan is written.

---

Phase 4: Implement Fixes

For each bug in the approved scope, spawn a focused implementation loop:

1. Spawn `lead-programmer` via Task with:

• The bug report (exact reproduction steps and root cause if known)
• The constraint: minimum viable fix only, no cleanup
• The affected files (from bug report Technical Context section)

2. The lead-programmer implements and runs targeted tests.

3. Spawn `qa-tester` via Task to verify: does the bug reproduce after the fix?

For config/data-only fixes: make the change directly (no programmer agent needed). Confirm the value changed and re-run any relevant smoke test.

---

Phase 5: Patch QA Gate

This is a lightweight QA pass — not a full `/team-qa`. The patch is already QA-approved from the release gate; we are only re-verifying the changed areas.

Spawn `qa-lead` via Task with:

• List of all changed files
• List of bugs fixed (with verification status from Phase 4)
• The smoke check scope for the affected systems

Ask qa-lead to determine: **Is a targeted smoke check sufficient, or do any fixes touch systems that require a broader regression?**

Run the required QA scope:

• **Targeted smoke check** — run `/smoke-check [affected-systems]`
• **Broader regression** — run targeted tests in `tests/unit/` and `tests/integration/` for affected systems

QA verdict must be PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS before proceeding. If FAIL: scope the failing fix out of the day-one patch and defer to 1.1.

---

Phase 6: Generate Patch Record

# Day-One Patch: [Game Name] v[version]

**Date prepared**: [date]
**Target release**: [launch date or "day of launch"]
**Base build**: [gold master tag or commit]
**Patch build**: [patch tag or commit]

---

## Patch Notes (Internal)

### Bugs Fixed
| BUG-ID | Severity | Description | Fix summa