Claude-Code-Game-Studios/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/agents/leads/level-designer.md

Agent Test Spec: level-designer

Agent Summary

Domain owned: Level layouts, encounter design (per-encounter difficulty), pacing charts, environmental storytelling, secret and optional content placement, flow analysis. Does NOT own: Game-wide systems (game-designer / systems-designer), story decisions (narrative-director — coordinates with), visual art style (art-director), level implementation in the engine and enemy AI code (programmers), game-wide difficulty parameters. Gate IDs handled: None. Design-review verdicts come from the /design-review skill, which spawns level-designer as a specialist that returns findings.

---

Static Assertions (Structural)

Verified by reading the agent's .claude/agents/level-designer.md frontmatter:

• description: field is present and domain-specific (references level layout, encounter design, pacing, environmental storytelling — not generic)
• tools: reads Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit and disallowedTools: lists Bash
• Model tier is inherit — frontmatter model: reads exactly inherit (tiers: .claude/docs/model-tiers.md)
• Agent definition does not claim authority over narrative dialogue, AI behavior code, or visual art style

---

Test Cases

Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output format

Scenario: The user has agreed the outline for "The Flooded Tunnels": a low-intensity exploration opening, two mid-intensity encounters with visible escape routes, a tension-building narrow passage with environmental hazards, and a high-intensity final encounter room followed by a release/reward area. The user asks level-designer to draft the level document. Expected: Drafts the level document in the Level Document Standard, with a pacing chart that follows the agreed tension arc and an encounter list that gives each encounter's type, difficulty, and position. Shows each section and asks before writing it. Assertions:

• The document has all nine Level Document Standard sections: Level Name and Theme, Estimated Play Time, Layout Diagram, Critical Path, Optional Paths, Encounter List, Pacing Chart, Narrative Beats, Music/Audio Cues
• The Pacing Chart follows the outline's intensity curve — low opening, mid encounters, rising passage, high final encounter, release — with its rest points marked
• The Encounter List gives type, difficulty, and position for each encounter
• Asks "May I create [filepath] with the section skeleton?" before creating the file and "May I write this section to [filepath]?" before writing each section, and does not decide visual art style or enemy AI code

Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects or escalates

Scenario: A team member asks level-designer to write the behavior tree code for an enemy patrol AI that navigates the level layout. Expected: Agent declines to write AI behavior code — implementation is outside its role — and instead specifies the patrol from a level design perspective, as input for ai-programmer. Assertions:

• Does not write or specify code for AI behavior logic
• States that behavior-tree code is implementation work outside its role, rather than taking it on
• Explicitly names ai-programmer (or gameplay-programmer, which its file names for engine implementation) as who implements it
• Specifies the desired patrol in level design terms (e.g., route through named chokepoints and sight lines, pressure zones, spawn timing) for the programmer to implement

Case 3: Review findings — specific, verdict left to the review skill

Scenario: /design-review in full mode spawns level-designer as the adversarial specialist for the level document of "The Ancient Forge." The spawn prompt reads: "Your job is NOT to validate this design — your job is to find problems. Be specific and critical." Section 3 of the level introduces a dramatically harder elite enemy with new attack patterns, with no earlier moment that introduces it, no environmental readability cues (no visible cover or safe zones), and no checkpoint nearby. Expected: Returns specific findings locating the problem in section 3: the difficulty spike, the missing readability cues, and the missing checkpoint, each with a concrete spatial fix offered as an option. It returns findings, not a verdict — /design-review issues the verdict. Assertions:

• Identifies section 3 specifically as the location of the issue
• Identifies the three specific problems: difficulty spike without an introduction, missing readability cues, missing nearby checkpoint
• Provides actionable spatial revision options (e.g., introduce the elite in isolation first, add a visible safe zone or cover, place a checkpoint before the arena)
• Returns findings to the review, not its own APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION stamp

Case 4: Conflict escalation — correct parent

Scenario: game-designer wants higher encounter density throughout the level (more enemies in each room) to increase combat challenge. level-designer believes this density undermines the pacing arc by eliminating rest periods and making the level feel relentless without reward. Expected: level-designer states the pacing concern in pacing-chart terms (removing rest points flattens the tension-release rhythm), acknowledges game-designer's challenge goal, lays out the options, and escalates to creative-director for a design arbiter ruling on whether challenge density or pacing rhythm takes precedence for this level. Assertions:

• States the specific pacing impact: denser rooms remove the rest points, flattening the intensity curve into constant high intensity
• Escalates to creative-director as the design arbiter
• Does not unilaterally override game-designer's challenge density request
• Presents the choice as options (e.g., keep density, keep rest points, add density with dedicated rest rooms) with a recommendation, leaving the ruling to the arbiter

Case 5: Context pass — uses provided context

Scenario: The request includes game-feel notes: "exploration sections should feel vast and lonely," "combat sections should feel urgent and claustrophobic," and "reward rooms should feel safe and visually distinct." A new level layout is submitted for the agent's assessment. Its exploration section is a narrow, winding corridor, and its reward room uses the same lighting and layout as the combat arena before it. Expected: Assessment evaluates each section type (exploration, combat, reward) against its feel target, using the exact vocabulary from the notes, and flags the two sections that conflict with their targets. Assertions:

• References all three feel targets from the provided context by their exact vocabulary
• Evaluates each relevant section of the submitted layout against its corresponding feel target
• Flags the narrow exploration corridor as conflicting with "vast and lonely," and the reward room as not "visually distinct" from the arena
• Does not generate generic pacing advice — all feedback is tied to the provided feel targets

---

Protocol Compliance

• Level documents it drafts contain the Level Document Standard's nine sections
• Stays within declared level design domain
• Escalates challenge-density vs. pacing conflicts to creative-director
• Does not make binding narrative dialogue, AI code implementation, or visual art style decisions
• Provides actionable level design feedback with spatial specifics, not abstract design opinions

---

Coverage Notes

• Environmental storytelling (using spatial elements to convey narrative without dialogue) could benefit from a dedicated case.
• Spatial puzzle design is not covered — a dedicated case should be added when puzzle mechanics are defined.
• Multi-level pacing (arc across an entire act or world map) is not covered — deferred to milestone-level design review.
• Interaction between level-designer and narrative-director for environmental lore placement is not covered.
• Accessibility review of level layouts (colorblind indicators, difficulty options for spatial challenges) is not covered.