Game Studio Agent Architecture — complete setup (Phases 1-7)

48 coordinated Claude Code subagents for indie game development:
- 3 leadership agents (creative-director, technical-director, producer)
- 10 department leads (game-designer, lead-programmer, art-director, etc.)
- 23 specialist agents (gameplay, engine, AI, networking, UI, tools, etc.)
- 12 engine-specific agents (Godot, Unity, Unreal with sub-specialists)

Infrastructure:
- 34 skills (slash commands) for workflows, reviews, and team orchestration
- 8 hooks for commit validation, asset checks, session management
- 11 path-scoped rules enforcing domain-specific standards
- 28 templates for design docs, reports, and collaborative protocols

Key features:
- User-driven collaboration protocol (Question → Options → Decision → Draft → Approval)
- Engine version awareness with knowledge-gap detection (Godot 4.6 pinned)
- Phase gate system for development milestone validation
- CLAUDE.md kept under 80 lines with extracted doc imports

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+---
+name: brainstorm
+description: "Guided game concept ideation — from zero idea to a structured game concept document. Uses professional studio ideation techniques, player psychology frameworks, and structured creative exploration."
+argument-hint: "[genre or theme hint, or 'open' for fully open brainstorm]"
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, WebSearch
+---
+
+When this skill is invoked:
+
+1. **Parse the argument** for an optional genre/theme hint (e.g., `roguelike`,
+   `space survival`, `cozy farming`). If `open` or no argument, start from
+   scratch.
+
+2. **Check for existing concept work**:
+   - Read `design/gdd/game-concept.md` if it exists (resume, don't restart)
+   - Read `design/gdd/game-pillars.md` if it exists (build on established pillars)
+
+3. **Run through ideation phases** interactively, asking the user questions at
+   each phase. Do NOT generate everything silently — the goal is **collaborative
+   exploration** where the AI acts as a creative facilitator, not a replacement
+   for the human's vision.
+
+   Professional studio brainstorming principles to follow:
+   - Withhold judgment — no idea is bad during exploration
+   - Encourage unusual ideas — outside-the-box thinking sparks better concepts
+   - Build on each other — "yes, and..." responses, not "but..."
+   - Use constraints as creative fuel — limitations often produce the best ideas
+   - Time-box each phase — keep momentum, don't over-deliberate early
+
+---
+
+### Phase 1: Creative Discovery
+
+Start by understanding the person, not the game. Ask these questions
+conversationally (not as a checklist):
+
+**Emotional anchors**:
+- What's a moment in a game that genuinely moved you, thrilled you, or made
+  you lose track of time? What specifically created that feeling?
+- Is there a fantasy or power trip you've always wanted in a game but never
+  quite found?
+
+**Taste profile**:
+- What 3 games have you spent the most time with? What kept you coming back?
+- Are there genres you love? Genres you avoid? Why?
+- Do you prefer games that challenge you, relax you, tell you stories,
+  or let you express yourself?
+
+**Practical constraints** (shape the sandbox before brainstorming):
+- Solo developer or team? What skills are available?
+- Timeline: weeks, months, or years?
+- Any platform constraints? (PC only? Mobile? Console?)
+- First game or experienced developer?
+
+**Synthesize** the answers into a **Creative Brief** — a 3-5 sentence
+summary of the person's emotional goals, taste profile, and constraints.
+Read the brief back and confirm it captures their intent.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 2: Concept Generation
+
+Using the creative brief as a foundation, generate **3 distinct concepts**
+that each take a different creative direction. Use these ideation techniques:
+
+**Technique 1: Verb-First Design**
+Start with the core player verb (build, fight, explore, solve, survive,
+create, manage, discover) and build outward from there. The verb IS the game.
+
+**Technique 2: Mashup Method**
+Combine two unexpected elements: [Genre A] + [Theme B]. The tension between
+the two creates the unique hook. (e.g., "farming sim + cosmic horror",
+"roguelike + dating sim", "city builder + real-time combat")
+
+**Technique 3: Experience-First Design (MDA Backward)**
+Start from the desired player emotion (aesthetic goal from MDA framework:
+sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression,
+submission) and work backward to the dynamics and mechanics that produce it.
+
+For each concept, present:
+- **Working Title**
+- **Elevator Pitch** (1-2 sentences — must pass the "10-second test")
+- **Core Verb** (the single most common player action)
+- **Core Fantasy** (the emotional promise)
+- **Unique Hook** (passes the "and also" test: "Like X, AND ALSO Y")
+- **Primary MDA Aesthetic** (which emotion dominates?)
+- **Estimated Scope** (small / medium / large)
+- **Why It Could Work** (1 sentence on market/audience fit)
+- **Biggest Risk** (1 sentence on the hardest unanswered question)
+
+Present all three. Ask the user to pick one, combine elements, or request
+new concepts. Never pressure toward a choice — let them sit with it.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 3: Core Loop Design
+
+For the chosen concept, use structured questioning to build the core loop.
+The core loop is the beating heart of the game — if it isn't fun in
+isolation, no amount of content or polish will save the game.
+
+**30-Second Loop** (moment-to-moment):
+- What is the player physically doing most often?
+- Is this action intrinsically satisfying? (Would they do it with no
+  rewards, no progression, no story — just for the feel of it?)
+- What makes this action feel good? (Audio feedback, visual juice,
+  timing satisfaction, tactical depth?)
+
+**5-Minute Loop** (short-term goals):
+- What structures the moment-to-moment play into cycles?
+- Where does "one more turn" / "one more run" psychology kick in?
+- What choices does the player make at this level?
+
+**Session Loop** (30-120 minutes):
+- What does a complete session look like?
+- Where are the natural stopping points?
+- What's the "hook" that makes them think about the game when not playing?
+
+**Progression Loop** (days/weeks):
+- How does the player grow? (Power? Knowledge? Options? Story?)
+- What's the long-term goal? When is the game "done"?
+
+**Player Motivation Analysis** (based on Self-Determination Theory):
+- **Autonomy**: How much meaningful choice does the player have?
+- **Competence**: How does the player feel their skill growing?
+- **Relatedness**: How does the player feel connected (to characters,
+  other players, or the world)?
+
+---
+
+### Phase 4: Pillars and Boundaries
+
+Game pillars are used by real AAA studios (God of War, Hades, The Last of
+Us) to keep hundreds of team members making decisions that all point the
+same direction. Even for solo developers, pillars prevent scope creep and
+keep the vision sharp.
+
+Collaboratively define **3-5 pillars**:
+- Each pillar has a **name** and **one-sentence definition**
+- Each pillar has a **design test**: "If we're debating between X and Y,
+  this pillar says we choose __"
+- Pillars should feel like they create tension with each other — if all
+  pillars point the same way, they're not doing enough work
+
+Then define **3+ anti-pillars** (what this game is NOT):
+- Anti-pillars prevent the most common form of scope creep: "wouldn't it
+  be cool if..." features that don't serve the core vision
+- Frame as: "We will NOT do [thing] because it would compromise [pillar]"
+
+---
+
+### Phase 5: Player Type Validation
+
+Using the Bartle taxonomy and Quantic Foundry motivation model, validate
+who this game is actually for:
+
+- **Primary player type**: Who will LOVE this game? (Achievers, Explorers,
+  Socializers, Competitors, Creators, Storytellers)
+- **Secondary appeal**: Who else might enjoy it?
+- **Who is this NOT for**: Being clear about who won't like this game is as
+  important as knowing who will
+- **Market validation**: Are there successful games that serve a similar
+  player type? What can we learn from their audience size?
+
+---
+
+### Phase 6: Scope and Feasibility
+
+Ground the concept in reality:
+
+- **Engine recommendation** (Godot / Unity / Unreal) with reasoning based
+  on concept needs, team expertise, and platform targets
+- **Art pipeline**: What's the art style and how labor-intensive is it?
+- **Content scope**: Estimate level/area count, item count, gameplay hours
+- **MVP definition**: What's the absolute minimum build that tests "is the
+  core loop fun?"
+- **Biggest risks**: Technical risks, design risks, market risks
+- **Scope tiers**: What's the full vision vs. what ships if time runs out?
+
+---
+
+4. **Generate the game concept document** using the template at
+   `.claude/docs/templates/game-concept.md`. Fill in ALL sections from the
+   brainstorm conversation, including the MDA analysis, player motivation
+   profile, and flow state design sections.
+
+5. **Save to** `design/gdd/game-concept.md`, creating directories as needed.
+
+6. **Suggest next steps** (in this order — this is the professional studio
+   pre-production pipeline):
+   - "Run `/setup-engine [engine] [version]` to configure the engine and populate version-aware reference docs"
+   - "Use `/design-review design/gdd/game-concept.md` to validate completeness"
+   - "Discuss vision with the `creative-director` agent for pillar refinement"
+   - "Prototype the core loop with `/prototype [core-mechanic]`"
+   - "Playtest the prototype with `/playtest-report` to validate the hypothesis"
+   - "If validated, plan the first sprint with `/sprint-plan new`"
+
+7. **Output a summary** with the chosen concept's elevator pitch, pillars,
+   primary player type, engine recommendation, biggest risk, and file path.