Files
Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/balance-check/SKILL.md
Donchitos 984023ddac Release v1.0.0 — concept-prototype/vertical-slice split, workflow restructure, polish (#50)
* Add /vertical-slice skill, prototype overhaul, and workflow integration

- Add /vertical-slice skill for pre-production validation (Phase 4 gate)
- Overhaul /prototype skill with two-mode design: concept prototype (Phase 1)
  vs vertical slice (Phase 4), with clearer differentiation and higher standards for VS
- Update prototyper agent to own both prototype and vertical-slice workflows
- Add prototype-report.md and vertical-slice-report.md output templates
- Update WORKFLOW-GUIDE, quick-start, skills-reference, agent-coordination-map,
  and skill-flow-diagrams to fully integrate both skills into the 7-phase pipeline
- Remove orphaned empty quick-prototype/ directory

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

* sync v1 counts + polish

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

* Add entity inventory flow, relax vertical-slice gate, improve UX authoring prompts

- /asset-spec: new Phase 0b entity & screen inventory when no argument and no
  existing inventory — reads GDDs/art-bible, proposes categorized list, writes
  design/assets/entity-inventory.md collaboratively
- /asset-spec: entity/character target falls back to inline user description
  when no source doc exists, rather than failing
- /gate-check: vertical slice changed from blocking to CONCERNS-only when
  absent; built-but-broken slice still fails; adds entity inventory as gate artifact
- /ux-design: convert inline approval prompts to AskUserQuestion for structured
  option capture at key authoring decision points
- workflow-catalog.yaml: entity-inventory step added to pre-production; UX spec
  min_count raised to 3; vertical-slice and prototype marked required: false with
  updated descriptions
- .gitignore: exclude marrow/ eval tooling directory

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

* Add missing AskUserQuestion widgets to 7 skills

Audit found 11 decision points across 7 skills where structured option
prompts were missing — using plain text, auto-selection, or no gate at all.

Skills patched:
- create-epics: per-epic approval + producer CONCERNS verdict
- sprint-plan: producer CONCERNS verdict with scope/timeline options
- milestone-review: AT RISK / OFF TRACK producer verdicts require acknowledgement
- retrospective: existing-retro handling converted from plain text [A]/[B]
- quick-design: classification confirmation + draft approve/revise/redirect
- tech-debt add mode: category (6 options) + effort (S/M/L/XL) structured capture
- regression-suite: no-arg mode selection instead of silent auto-detect
- hotfix: severity confirmation gate before workflow begins

Also added AskUserQuestion to allowed-tools headers for retrospective,
quick-design, tech-debt, regression-suite, and hotfix.

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

* Prep v1 stable: fix WORKFLOW-GUIDE counts, stale agent names, and skill model fields

- WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md: correct agent count (48→49), skill count (66/68→73),
  add 6 missing skills to Appendix B, fix Creative category count (2→4),
  replace 3 non-existent agent names with correct ue-*/unity-* specialists,
  add missing godot-csharp/gdextension specialists to hierarchy,
  fix production/stories/ paths → production/epics/
- coordination-rules.md: replace "not yet used" with opt-in env var note
- quick-start.md: rename duplicate "Validate the concept" label → "Prototype the mechanic"
- skill-flow-diagrams.md: remove duplicate legacy UX pipeline section
- All 62 skills missing model: field now have explicit model: sonnet

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

* fix: comprehensive skill audit — consistency, UX, and flow gaps

Two-pass audit fixing ~35 bugs across 41 files.

Pre-production flow:
- Brainstorm next-steps split into Path A (design-first) and Path B
  (prototype-first) — eliminates "prototype after architecture" confusion
- /architecture-review added to pre-production flow in brainstorm and
  create-architecture handoffs
- gate-check traceability check corrected to requirements-traceability.md
- dev-story TR registry error now points to /architecture-review (not /create-epics)
- start now writes production/stage.txt on first onboarding

AskUserQuestion gaps filled:
- balance-check, code-review, hotfix, day-one-patch, consistency-check
  all gain closing widgets and/or missing allowed-tools declarations
- hotfix git branch creation now requires user confirmation
- sprint-plan review-mode setup moved to Phase 0 (before gates run)
- team-combat gains architecture→implementation approval gate
- design-review APPROVED path consolidated from 3 widgets to 1 multiSelect

All 9 team-* skills:
- Phase 0 review-mode resolution added (solo/lean/full now respected)
- team-audio output path fixed (design/gdd/ → design/audio/)
- team-level final doc compilation delegated to level-designer subagent
- team-narrative localization-lead added to composition list
- team-qa sprint path fixed (flat files, not directories)
- team-release NO-GO override captures written justification
- team-live-ops Cancel verdict now explicitly BLOCKED

Other fixes:
- Art bible path standardized to design/art/art-bible.md (3 wrong refs)
- AD-PHASE-GATE added to lean-mode skip list in director-gates.md
- design-system duplicate 5d heading fixed; skeleton decline path added;
  mandatory agent spawns now respect review mode
- story-readiness acceptance criteria thresholds now type-aware
- create-stories gains multi-ADR and no-ADR handling guidance
- consistency-check creates docs/consistency-failures.md on first run
- retrospective frontmatter bash injection replaced with explicit Bash call
- smoke-check ls -t gains PowerShell fallback
- Conventional Commits format documented in coding-standards.md
- gate-check: ADR acceptance gate, QA plan check, chain-of-verification
  tool-action requirement all added

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

* fix: expose --review flag in argument-hints for all team-* skills

All 9 team-* skills already implement Phase 0 review-mode resolution
internally (full/lean/solo), but none advertised [--review full|lean|solo]
in their argument-hint. Users had no way to discover the per-run override.

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

* docs: add SECURITY.md with coordinated disclosure policy

Defines scope, reporting process (GitHub private vulnerability reporting),
contributor security guidelines for hooks/skills/agents, and 90-day
coordinated disclosure timeline.

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

* docs: add CONTRIBUTING.md with framework contribution guidelines

Covers what PRs are welcome, skill/hook/agent technical requirements,
the collaborative principle, testing expectations, commit format,
and platform compatibility requirements.

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

* docs: add v1.0.0-beta → v1.0 upgrade section to UPGRADING.md

Documents the 17 commits since the beta tag: new /vertical-slice gate,
entity inventory flow in /map-systems, AskUserQuestion widgets across
7 skills, --review flag exposure on team-* skills, bug fixes
(#21, #36, #42, #43, #45), and the new CONTRIBUTING.md and SECURITY.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-13 20:15:08 +10:00

4.4 KiB

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model, agent
name description argument-hint user-invocable allowed-tools model agent
balance-check Analyzes game balance data files, formulas, and configuration to identify outliers, broken progressions, degenerate strategies, and economy imbalances. Use after modifying any balance-related data or design. Use when user says 'balance report', 'check game balance', 'run a balance check'. [system-name|path-to-data-file] true Read, Glob, Grep, Write, AskUserQuestion sonnet economy-designer

Phase 1: Identify Balance Domain

Determine the balance domain from $ARGUMENTS[0]:

  • Combat → weapon/ability DPS, time-to-kill, damage type interactions
  • Economy → resource faucets/sinks, acquisition rates, item pricing
  • Progression → XP/power curves, dead zones, power spikes
  • Loot → rarity distribution, pity timers, inventory pressure
  • File path given → load that file directly and infer domain from content

If no argument, ask the user which system to check.


Phase 2: Read Data Files

Read relevant files from assets/data/ and design/balance/ for the identified domain. Note every file read — they will appear in the Data Sources section of the report.


Phase 3: Read Design Document

Read the GDD for the system from design/gdd/ to understand intended design targets, tuning knobs, and expected value ranges. This is the baseline for "correct" behaviour.


Phase 4: Perform Analysis

Run domain-specific checks:

Combat balance:

  • Calculate DPS for all weapons/abilities at each power tier
  • Check time-to-kill at each tier
  • Identify any options that dominate all others (strictly better)
  • Check if defensive options can create unkillable states
  • Verify damage type/resistance interactions are balanced

Economy balance:

  • Map all resource faucets and sinks with flow rates
  • Project resource accumulation over time
  • Check for infinite resource loops
  • Verify gold sinks scale with gold generation
  • Check if any items are never worth purchasing

Progression balance:

  • Plot the XP curve and power curve
  • Check for dead zones (no meaningful progression for too long)
  • Check for power spikes (sudden jumps in capability)
  • Verify content gates align with expected player power
  • Check if skip/grind strategies break intended pacing

Loot balance:

  • Calculate expected time to acquire each rarity tier
  • Check pity timer math
  • Verify no loot is strictly useless at any stage
  • Check inventory pressure vs acquisition rate

Phase 5: Output the Analysis

## Balance Check: [System Name]

### Data Sources Analyzed
- [List of files read]

### Health Summary: [HEALTHY / CONCERNS / CRITICAL ISSUES]

### Outliers Detected
| Item/Value | Expected Range | Actual | Issue |
|-----------|---------------|--------|-------|

### Degenerate Strategies Found
- [Strategy description and why it is problematic]

### Progression Analysis
[Graph description or table showing progression curve health]

### Recommendations
| Priority | Issue | Suggested Fix | Impact |
|----------|-------|--------------|--------|

### Values That Need Attention
[Specific values with suggested adjustments and rationale]

Phase 6: Fix & Verify Cycle

After presenting the report, use AskUserQuestion:

  • Prompt: "Balance check complete. What would you like to do next?"
  • Options:
    • [A] Fix highest-priority issue now — walk me through it
    • [B] Save report to design/balance/balance-check-[system]-[date].md
    • [C] Stop here — I'll review the findings manually

If [A]:

  • Ask which issue to address first (refer to the Recommendations table by priority row)
  • Guide the user to update the relevant data file in assets/data/ or formula in design/balance/
  • After each fix, offer to re-run the relevant balance checks to verify no new outliers were introduced
  • If the fix changes a tuning knob defined in a GDD or referenced by an ADR, remind the user:

    "This value is defined in a design document. Run /propagate-design-change [path] on the affected GDD to find downstream impacts before committing."

If [B]:

  • Write the report to design/balance/balance-check-[system]-[date].md (create the directory if needed). Use the current date for [date] in YYYY-MM-DD format.
  • Confirm the file was written, then end with: "Re-run /balance-check after fixes to verify."

If [C]:

  • Summarize open issues and end with: "Re-run /balance-check after fixes to verify."