mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
6c041ac1be
New skill: /consistency-check — cross-GDD entity registry scanner New registries: design/registry/entities.yaml, docs/registry/architecture.yaml Skill fixes: no-arg guards, verdict keywords, AskUserQuestion gates on all team-* skills Agent fixes: genre-agnostic language in game-designer, systems-designer, economy-designer, live-ops-designer Docs: skill/template counts corrected, stale references cleaned up Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
125 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
125 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Parse Arguments
|
|
|
|
Determine the mode:
|
|
|
|
- `new` → generate a blank playtest report template
|
|
- `analyze [path]` → read raw notes and fill in the template with structured findings
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2A: New Template Mode
|
|
|
|
Generate this template and output it to the user:
|
|
|
|
```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]
|
|
|
|
### Pain points
|
|
- [Issue 1 -- 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]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2B: Analyze Mode
|
|
|
|
Read the raw notes at the provided path. Cross-reference with existing design documents. Fill in the template above with structured findings. Flag any playtest observations that conflict with design intent.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Action Routing
|
|
|
|
Categorize all findings into four buckets:
|
|
|
|
- **Design changes needed** — fun issues, player confusion, broken mechanics, observations that conflict with the GDD's intended experience
|
|
- **Balance adjustments** — numbers feel wrong, difficulty too spiked or too flat
|
|
- **Bug reports** — clear implementation defects that are reproducible
|
|
- **Polish items** — not blocking progress, but friction or feel issues for later
|
|
|
|
Present the categorized list, then route:
|
|
|
|
- **Design changes:** "Run `/propagate-design-change [path]` on the affected design document to find downstream impacts before making changes."
|
|
- **Balance adjustments:** "Run `/balance-check [system]` to verify the full balance picture before tuning values."
|
|
- **Bugs:** "Use `/bug-report` to formally track these."
|
|
- **Polish items:** "Add to the polish backlog in `production/` when the team reaches that phase."
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Save Report
|
|
|
|
Ask: "May I write this playtest report to `production/qa/playtests/playtest-[date]-[tester].md`?"
|
|
|
|
If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 5: Next Steps
|
|
|
|
Verdict: **COMPLETE** — playtest report generated.
|
|
|
|
- Act on the highest-priority finding category first.
|
|
- After addressing design changes: re-run `/design-review` on the updated GDD.
|
|
- After fixing bugs: re-run `/bug-triage` to update priorities.
|