ksh999000/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git synced 2026-10-16 10:17:06 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
b21fa0f7f289fc3e726cf36fb12b9bc1e7a51e4d
Claude-Code-Game-Studios/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/team/team-live-ops.md
T
DonchitosandClaude Opus 5.5 b21fa0f7f2 Release 1.1.2 — the default path works end to end 
Fix release for 1.1.1: the minimal path end to end, engine commands that
run on Godot, Unity and Unreal, hook warnings you can see, and verdicts
that say when they could not check. Details in CHANGELOG.md; upgrade
steps in UPGRADING.md (v1.1.1 → v1.1.2).

Fixes #67
Fixes #131

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuJn2FdynEybfL5KC697nJ
2026-09-29 21:32:19 +10:00

13 KiB
Raw Blame History

Skill Test Spec: /team-live-ops

Skill Summary

Orchestrates the live-ops team through a 7-phase planning pipeline to produce a season or event plan. Coordinates live-ops-designer, economy-designer, analytics-engineer, community-manager, narrative-director, and writer. Phase 0 resolves review_mode, automation and team.size and the skill announces the active set before Phase 1 — individual spawns live-ops-designer + economy-designer, small adds analytics-engineer + community-manager, studio adds writer + narrative-director. Phases 3 and 4 (economy design and analytics) run simultaneously. Phase 7 checks the economy design against design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md. Sub-agents write working artifacts under production/; the orchestrator compiles the final documents and writes them to design/live-ops/seasons/ only after asking "May I write the season plan to design/live-ops/…?" via AskUserQuestion. Ends with a consolidated season plan requiring user approval before handoff to production.

Static Assertions (Structural)

  • Has required frontmatter fields: name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools
  • Has ≥2 phase headings
  • Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
  • Output Documents section: the orchestrator asks via AskUserQuestion "May I write the season plan to design/live-ops/…?" before writing, because design/ is outside the bounded write exception
  • Has a File Write Protocol section limiting sub-agent writes to the bounded exception (named path, new artifact under production/, docs/ or tests/, gated phase) — a sub-agent asks outside those bounds
  • Names a destination per agent under production/live-ops/[season-slug]/ — brief.md, narrative.md, economy.md, analytics.md, narrative-text.md, copy.md, comms.md — one file per agent
  • Defines a phase gate as a decision point the pipeline itself lists, whatever the automation mode, and claims no director spawn at phase gates
  • Has a next-step handoff at the end referencing /design-review, /sprint-plan, and /team-release
  • Uses AskUserQuestion at phase transitions to capture user approval before proceeding (collaborative mode)
  • Phase 0 resolves team.size, and the skill requires a one-line active-set announcement before Phase 1
  • States explicitly that Phases 3 and 4 can run simultaneously (parallel spawning)
  • Error recovery section present: verify a named artifact is on disk, surface BLOCKED immediately, always produce a partial report, end with BLOCKED if unresolvable
  • Output documents section specifies paths under design/live-ops/seasons/

Test Cases

Case 1: Happy Path — All 7 phases complete, season plan produced

Fixture:

  • Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
  • design/live-ops/economy-rules.md exists with current economy configuration
  • design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md exists with the project ethics policy
  • Game concept document exists at its standard path
  • No existing season documents for the new season name being planned

Input: /team-live-ops "Season 2: The Frozen Wastes"

Expected behavior:

  1. Before any spawn, one line announces the active set for team.size: studio
  2. Phase 1: Spawns live-ops-designer via Agent; receives season brief with scope, content list, and retention mechanic; presents to user
  3. AskUserQuestion: user approves Phase 1 output before Phase 2 begins
  4. Phase 2: Spawns narrative-director via Agent; reads the Phase 1 season brief; produces narrative framing document (theme, story hook, lore connections); presents to user
  5. Phase 3 and 4 (parallel): Spawns economy-designer and analytics-engineer simultaneously via two Agent calls before waiting for either result; economy-designer reads design/live-ops/economy-rules.md
  6. Phase 5: Spawns narrative-director and writer in parallel to produce in-game narrative text and player-facing copy; both read Phase 2 narrative framing doc
  7. Phase 6: Spawns community-manager via Agent; reads season brief, economy design, and narrative framing; produces communication calendar with draft copy
  8. Phase 7: Collects all phase outputs; presents consolidated season plan summary including economy health check, analytics readiness, ethics review against design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md, and open questions
  9. AskUserQuestion: user approves the full season plan
  10. Orchestrator compiles the three documents and asks via AskUserQuestion "May I write the season plan to design/live-ops/seasons/…?" covering S2_[name].md, S2_[name]_analytics.md and S2_[name]_comms.md; writes only on approval
  11. Verdict: COMPLETE — season plan produced and handed off for production

Assertions:

  • Active-set line naming team.size: studio appears before the first agent is spawned
  • All 7 phases execute in order; Phase 3 and 4 are issued as parallel Agent calls
  • Phase 7 consolidated summary includes all six sections (season brief, narrative framing, economy design, analytics plan, content inventory, communication calendar)
  • Ethics review section in Phase 7 explicitly references design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md
  • Three output documents written to design/live-ops/seasons/ with the S[N]_[name].md, S[N]_[name]_analytics.md, S[N]_[name]_comms.md naming convention
  • The design/live-ops/ documents are written by the orchestrator only after its AskUserQuestion approval — no sub-agent writes under design/
  • Verdict: COMPLETE appears in final output, only after the user approves the season plan
  • Next steps reference /design-review, /sprint-plan, and /team-release

Case 2: Ethics Violation Found — Reward element violates ethics policy

Fixture:

  • All standard live-ops fixtures present (economy-rules.md, ethics-policy.md)
  • design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md contains the rule "No randomized premium rewards without published drop rates and a pity timer"
  • economy-designer (Phase 3) proposes a "Mystery Chest" mechanic with randomized premium rewards, unpublished drop rates and no pity timer

Input: /team-live-ops "Season 3: Shadow Tournament"

Expected behavior:

  1. Phases 1–4 proceed normally; economy-designer proposes Mystery Chest mechanic
  2. Phase 7: Orchestrator reviews Phase 3 output against ethics policy; identifies Mystery Chest as a violation of the policy's "No randomized premium rewards without published drop rates and a pity timer" rule
  3. Ethics review section of the Phase 7 summary flags the violation explicitly: "ETHICS FLAG: Mystery Chest mechanic in Phase 3 economy design violates 'No randomized premium rewards without published drop rates and a pity timer'. Approval is blocked until this is resolved."
  4. AskUserQuestion presented with resolution options before season plan approval is offered
  5. Skill does NOT issue a COMPLETE verdict or write output documents until the ethics violation is resolved or explicitly waived by the user

Assertions:

  • Phase 7 ethics review section explicitly names the violating element and the policy rule it breaks
  • Skill does not auto-approve the season plan when an ethics violation is present
  • AskUserQuestion is used to surface the violation and offer resolution options (revise economy design, override with documented rationale, cancel)
  • Output documents are NOT written while the violation is unresolved
  • If user chooses to revise: skill re-spawns economy-designer to produce a corrected design before returning to Phase 7 review
  • Verdict: COMPLETE is only issued after the ethics flag is cleared; Cancel ends with Verdict: BLOCKED

Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown

Fixture:

  • Any project state

Input: /team-live-ops (no argument)

Expected behavior:

  1. No argument detected
  2. Outputs: "Usage: /team-live-ops [season name or event description] [--review full|lean|solo] — Provide the name or description of the season or live event to plan."
  3. Skill exits immediately without spawning any subagents

Assertions:

  • Skill does NOT guess a season name or fabricate a scope
  • Usage message shows the full argument-hint: /team-live-ops [season name or event description] [--review full|lean|solo]
  • No Agent calls are issued before the argument check fails
  • No files are read or written

Case 4: Parallel Phase Validation — Phases 3 and 4 run simultaneously

Fixture:

  • Resolved config block: team.size: small, automation: collaborative
  • All standard live-ops fixtures present
  • Phase 1 (season brief) and Phase 2 (narrative framing) already approved
  • Phase 3 (economy-designer) and Phase 4 (analytics-engineer) inputs are independent of each other

Input: /team-live-ops "Season 1: The First Thaw" (observed at Phase 3/4 transition)

Expected behavior:

  1. After Phase 2 is approved by the user, the orchestrator issues both Agent calls (economy-designer and analytics-engineer) before awaiting either result
  2. Both agents receive the season brief as context; analytics-engineer does NOT wait for economy-designer output to begin
  3. Economy-designer output and analytics-engineer output are collected together before Phase 5 begins
  4. If one of the two parallel agents blocks, the other continues; a partial result is reported

Assertions:

  • Both Agent calls for Phase 3 and Phase 4 are issued before either result is awaited — they are not sequential
  • Analytics-engineer prompt does NOT include economy-designer output as a required input (the inputs are independent)
  • If economy-designer blocks but analytics-engineer succeeds, analytics output is preserved and the block is surfaced via AskUserQuestion
  • Phase 5 does not begin until BOTH Phase 3 and Phase 4 results are collected
  • Skill documentation explicitly states "Phases 3 and 4 can run simultaneously"

Case 5: Missing Ethics Policy — design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md does not exist

Fixture:

  • design/live-ops/economy-rules.md exists
  • design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md does NOT exist
  • All other fixtures are present

Input: /team-live-ops "Season 4: Desert Heat"

Expected behavior:

  1. Phases 1–6 proceed normally
  2. Phase 7: Orchestrator attempts to run ethics review; detects that design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md is missing
  3. Phase 7 summary includes a gap flag: "ETHICS REVIEW SKIPPED: design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md not found. Economy design was not reviewed against an ethics policy. Recommend creating one before production begins."
  4. Skill still completes the season plan and reaches COMPLETE verdict, but the gap is prominently flagged in the output and in the season design document
  5. Next steps include a recommendation to create the ethics policy document

Assertions:

  • Skill does NOT error out when the ethics policy file is missing
  • Skill does NOT fabricate ethics policy rules in the absence of the file
  • Phase 7 summary explicitly notes that ethics review was skipped and why
  • Verdict: COMPLETE is still reachable despite the missing file
  • Gap flag appears in the season design output document (not just in conversation)
  • Next steps recommend creating design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md

Protocol Compliance

  • At the default team.size: individual, the run opens with an Active set (team.size: individual): live-ops-designer + economy-designer line and a Not spawned this run: line naming analytics-engineer, community-manager, narrative-director and writer — before any agent is spawned
  • In collaborative mode, AskUserQuestion used at every phase transition — user approves before the next phase begins
  • When analytics-engineer is in the active set (small or studio), Phases 3 and 4 are spawned in parallel, not sequentially
  • Sub-agents write only to paths the orchestrator named, under the bounded exception; the design/live-ops/ documents are written by the orchestrator after one AskUserQuestion "May I write the season plan…" approval
  • A phase whose named artifact is missing on disk is treated as failed, not done
  • Ethics review in Phase 7 always references the ethics policy file path explicitly
  • Error recovery: any BLOCKED agent is surfaced immediately with AskUserQuestion options (skip / retry / stop)
  • Partial reports are produced if any phase blocks — work is never discarded
  • Verdict: COMPLETE only after user approves the consolidated season plan; BLOCKED if any unresolved ethics violation exists
  • Next steps after a COMPLETE plan include /design-review, /sprint-plan, and /team-release; a run that ends BLOCKED on an ethics flag names the revision and re-run instead

Coverage Notes

  • Phase 5 parallel spawning (narrative-director + writer) follows the same pattern as Phases 3/4 but is not separately tested here — it uses the same parallel Agent protocol validated in Case 4.
  • The "economy-rules.md absent" edge case is not separately tested — it would surface as a BLOCKED result from economy-designer and follow the standard error recovery path tested implicitly in Case 4.
  • The full content writing pipeline (Phase 5 output validation) is validated implicitly by the Case 1 happy path consolidated summary check.
  • Community manager communication calendar format (pre-launch, launch day, mid-season, final week) is validated implicitly by Case 1; no separate edge case is needed.
  • Cases 2 and 5 depend only on economy-designer and the Phase 7 review, both of which run at every team.size.
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink