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/playtest-report/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+name: playtest-report
+description: "Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis."
+argument-hint: "[new|analyze path-to-notes]"
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write
+---
+
+When invoked with `new`, generate this template:
+
+```markdown
+# Playtest Report
+
+## Session Info
+- **Date**: [Date]
+- **Build**: [Version/Commit]
+- **Duration**: [Time played]
+- **Tester**: [Name/ID]
+- **Platform**: [PC/Console/Mobile]
+- **Input Method**: [KB+M / Gamepad / Touch]
+- **Session Type**: [First time / Returning / Targeted test]
+
+## Test Focus
+[What specific features or flows were being tested]
+
+## First Impressions (First 5 minutes)
+- **Understood the goal?** [Yes/No/Partially]
+- **Understood the controls?** [Yes/No/Partially]
+- **Emotional response**: [Engaged/Confused/Bored/Frustrated/Excited]
+- **Notes**: [Observations]
+
+## Gameplay Flow
+### What worked well
+- [Observation 1]
+- [Observation 2]
+
+### Pain points
+- [Issue 1 -- Severity: High/Medium/Low]
+- [Issue 2 -- Severity: High/Medium/Low]
+
+### Confusion points
+- [Where the player was confused and why]
+
+### Moments of delight
+- [What surprised or pleased the player]
+
+## Bugs Encountered
+| # | Description | Severity | Reproducible |
+|---|-------------|----------|-------------|
+
+## Feature-Specific Feedback
+### [Feature 1]
+- **Understood purpose?** [Yes/No]
+- **Found engaging?** [Yes/No]
+- **Suggestions**: [Tester suggestions]
+
+## Quantitative Data (if available)
+- **Deaths**: [Count and locations]
+- **Time per area**: [Breakdown]
+- **Items used**: [What and when]
+- **Features discovered vs missed**: [List]
+
+## Overall Assessment
+- **Would play again?** [Yes/No/Maybe]
+- **Difficulty**: [Too Easy / Just Right / Too Hard]
+- **Pacing**: [Too Slow / Good / Too Fast]
+- **Session length preference**: [Shorter / Good / Longer]
+
+## Top 3 Priorities from this session
+1. [Most important finding]
+2. [Second priority]
+3. [Third priority]
+```
+
+When invoked with `analyze`, read the raw notes, cross-reference with existing
+design documents, and fill in the template above with structured findings.
+Flag any playtest observations that conflict with design intent.