mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
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>
201 lines
8.5 KiB
Markdown
201 lines
8.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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.
|