mirror of
https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git
synced 2026-06-27 13:01:50 +00:00
ad540fe75d
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>
2.2 KiB
2.2 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| playtest-report | Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis. | [new|analyze path-to-notes] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, Write |
When invoked with new, generate this template:
# 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.