Project 18: Release Readiness Drill

A launch rehearsal that validates legal docs, localization, crash reporting, and support workflows.

Quick Reference

Attribute Value
Difficulty Level 3
Time Estimate Weekend
Main Programming Language C# (.NET 8) + MonoGame
Alternative Programming Languages F#, C++ (raylib), Godot C#
Coolness Level Level 3
Business Potential Level 3
Prerequisites Deterministic loop basics, debugging discipline, content pipeline fundamentals
Key Topics Checklist discipline, Cross functional handoffs, Incident response prep

1. Learning Objectives

  1. Translate one concrete production question into a testable implementation plan.
  2. Implement and validate the feature in a MonoGame runtime context.
  3. Instrument success and failure paths with actionable diagnostics.
  4. Produce a repeatable demo artifact for portfolio or interview use.

2. All Theory Needed (Per-Concept Breakdown)

Checklist discipline

Fundamentals Checklist discipline is central to this project because it defines the non-negotiable behavioral contract for the feature. You should be able to describe valid inputs, legal state transitions, and expected outputs under normal and failure conditions.

Deep Dive into the concept Treat Checklist discipline as a boundary-setting mechanism. Start by defining the smallest deterministic scenario that proves the feature works. Stress that scenario under altered timing, altered content inputs, and altered user actions. If behavior changes unexpectedly, document hidden coupling and sequence assumptions. Keep transitions explicit and observable via logs or debug panels. Connect each transition to an event record so regression analysis is possible after refactors.

Cross functional handoffs

Fundamentals Cross functional handoffs ensures the project scales from local prototype behavior to repeatable system behavior.

Deep Dive into the concept Use Cross functional handoffs to reason about data flow ownership and mutation timing. Document where writes occur, when validation runs, and how rollback behaves if a write fails.

Incident response prep

Fundamentals Incident response prep connects this project to shipping reality by forcing you to think about operational constraints early.

Deep Dive into the concept Define one production-like failure mode related to Incident response prep and build a mitigation checklist. The solution is complete when you can demonstrate both a golden path and a controlled failure path.

3. Project Specification

3.1 What You Will Build

A launch-readiness rehearsal system that runs a full pre-launch checklist and incident tabletop with owner-tracked blocker resolution.

Visible game deliverable:

  • Launch checklist board grouped by Legal, QA, Ops, Support
  • Incident simulation timer and event timeline
  • Owner matrix showing blocker assignment and SLA

3.2 Functional Requirements

  1. Execute and score launch checklist items across disciplines.
  2. Simulate severity incidents and record response timeline.
  3. Assign blockers to owners with deadlines and status.
  4. Export drill report for release go/no-go review.

3.3 Non-Functional Requirements

  • Performance: Must remain inside project-appropriate frame budget.
  • Reliability: Must recover from at least one injected failure mode.
  • Usability: Outcome must be observable by a reviewer in under two minutes.

3.4 Example Usage / Output

[DRILL] checklist_done=42 blocked=3
[DRILL] sev1_response_time=11m
[DRILL] report_exported path=docs/release-drill.md

3.5 Data Formats / Schemas / Protocols

  • Event record: {timestamp, module, action, result}
  • Feature state snapshot: {version, state, counters, flags}

3.6 Edge Cases

  • Checklist item dependency cycles.
  • Unassigned blocker at drill completion.
  • Conflicting owner decisions on go/no-go threshold.

3.7 Real World Outcome

This is a game-facing outcome you can see and play immediately.

What you will see in the game window:

  • Launch checklist board grouped by Legal, QA, Ops, Support
  • Incident simulation timer and event timeline
  • Owner matrix showing blocker assignment and SLA

Project 18 Release Readiness Drill Window Mockup

How you interact:

  • Run drill button
  • Inject Sev1 incident
  • Export report

3.7.1 How to Run (Copy/Paste)

$ dotnet restore
$ dotnet build
$ dotnet run --project src/Game -- --scene release-drill

3.7.2 Golden Path Demo (Deterministic)

  1. Start the scene and confirm all HUD panels load.
  2. Perform the three core interactions listed above.
  3. Verify the success signal appears without warnings.

3.7.3 If CLI: exact transcript

$ dotnet run --project src/Game -- --scene release-drill
[DRILL] checklist_done=42 blocked=3
[DRILL] sev1_response_time=11m
[DRILL] report_exported path=docs/release-drill.md

3.7.7 If GUI / Desktop

+------------------------------------------------------+
| release-drill                                   [F1 HUD] |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| PLAYFIELD: gameplay objects and interactions         |
| HUD: key metrics + status badges                    |
| STATUS: success/failure cues and prompts            |
+------------------------------------------------------+

4. Solution Architecture

4.1 High-Level Design

Checklist Engine -> Incident Simulator -> Ownership Tracker -> Go/No-Go Report

Checklist Engine -> Incident Simulator -> Ownership Tracker -> Go/No-Go Report

4.2 Key Components

Component Responsibility Key Decisions
ReadinessChecklist Tracks required launch prerequisites Category-level completion metrics
IncidentTabletop Simulates launch-day failures Time-boxed response evaluation
ReleaseDecisionBoard Aggregates blockers and risk posture Explicit go/no-go policy thresholds

4.4 Algorithm Overview

  1. Validate preconditions.
  2. Apply deterministic transition.
  3. Emit feedback and telemetry.
  4. Persist if required.

5. Implementation Guide

5.3 The Core Question You’re Answering

“What fails most often in the final 72 hours before launch?”

5.4 Concepts You Must Understand First

  1. Checklist discipline
  2. Cross functional handoffs
  3. Incident response prep

5.5 Questions to Guide Your Design

  1. Which checklist items are non-negotiable blockers?
  2. How will you score incident response readiness objectively?
  3. What condition flips decision from go to no-go?

5.6 Thinking Exercise

Trace one full success path and one failure path on paper before implementation.

5.7 The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

  1. Why did you pick this architecture boundary?
  2. Which failure mode did you prioritize first and why?
  3. How does your instrumentation accelerate debugging?
  4. How would you scale this feature to a larger game?

5.8 Hints in Layers

  • Hint 1: Stabilize one invariant before feature expansion.
  • Hint 2: Add diagnostics before optimization.
  • Hint 3: Keep platform calls at system boundaries.
  • Hint 4: Re-run deterministic scenario after each refactor.

5.9 Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Core concept “The DevOps Handbook” Relevant concept chapter
Reliability “Release It!” Failure handling chapters
Architecture “Clean Architecture” Boundary and dependency chapters

6. Testing Strategy

  1. Golden path completes and emits success signal.
  2. Injected failure path recovers without crash.
  3. Re-run scenario after restart and confirm consistency.

7. Common Pitfalls & Debugging

  • Hidden initialization order coupling
  • Time-coupled behavior tied to render rate
  • Missing fallback behavior on platform call failure

8. Extensions & Challenges

  • Beginner: add one extra diagnostics panel metric.
  • Intermediate: add replay capture for event flow.
  • Advanced: add automated stress test harness.

9. Real-World Connections

This project mirrors shipping feature-module work in real indie and mid-size game teams.

10. Resources

  • Steamworks official docs
  • MonoGame docs
  • Gemini image generation docs (for asset-related projects)

11. Self-Assessment Checklist

  • I can explain the feature invariant and prove it in a demo.
  • I can trigger and handle one deterministic failure scenario.
  • I can describe tradeoffs and future scaling choices.

12. Submission / Completion Criteria

Minimum Viable Completion:

  • Feature works in deterministic golden path.
  • One controlled failure path is handled gracefully.
  • Core diagnostics are visible and documented.

Full Completion:

  • All minimum criteria plus edge-case coverage and regression checks.

Excellence:

  • Includes polished instrumentation and clear productionization notes.