Claude-Code-Game-Studios/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/team/team-narrative.md

Skill Test Spec: /team-narrative

Skill Summary

Orchestrates the narrative team through a five-phase pipeline: narrative direction (narrative-director) → world foundation, dialogue drafting and visual direction (world-builder, writer and art-director in parallel) → level narrative integration (level-designer) → consistency review (narrative-director) → polish + localization compliance (writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel). Phase 0 resolves review_mode, automation and team.size and the skill announces the active set before Phase 1 — at the default individual only writer is spawned (narrative-director only on an explicit pillar conflict), small adds narrative-director, plus localization-lead and world-builder when review_mode is full, and studio activates every narrative agent whatever the review mode. Each agent drafts to a concrete path under production/narrative/[content-slug]/ named in the skill's path table; Phase 4 runs the ND-CONSISTENCY gate; the orchestrator writes the final documents to design/narrative/ after one approval. Uses AskUserQuestion at each phase transition. Produces a narrative summary report. Verdict is COMPLETE when all phases succeed — COMPLETE — consistency NOT ASSESSED ([input]) when the ND-CONSISTENCY review could not assess — or BLOCKED when a dependency is unresolved.

---

Static Assertions (Structural)

• Has required frontmatter fields: name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools
• Has ≥2 phase headings
• Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
• Contains "File Write Protocol" section
• Sub-agents write drafts under production/narrative/[content-slug]/; the orchestrator writes only the final design/narrative/ documents, after one "May I write" approval
• Names a concrete draft path per agent (including level-designer and localization-lead) and the final design/narrative/ document each design artifact becomes — localization-lead's review is not one, and stays in production/
• Every agent prompt ends with the return contract: path written, ≤5-bullet summary, BLOCKED/CONCERNS items one line each
• 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 (references /design-review, /localize extract, /dev-story)
• Error Recovery Protocol section is present: verify a named artifact is on disk, surface BLOCKED immediately, always produce a partial report, full procedure in .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md
• AskUserQuestion is used at phase transitions before proceeding (collaborative mode)
• Phase 0 resolves team.size, and the skill requires a one-line active-set announcement before Phase 1
• Phase 2 explicitly spawns world-builder, writer and art-director in parallel
• Phase 5 explicitly spawns writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel

---

Test Cases

Case 1: Happy Path — All five phases complete, narrative doc delivered

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• A game concept and GDD exist for the target feature (e.g., design/gdd/faction-intro.md)
• Character voice profiles exist (e.g., design/narrative/characters/)
• Existing lore entries exist for cross-reference (e.g., design/narrative/lore/)
• No lore contradictions exist between existing entries and the new content

Input: /team-narrative faction introduction cutscene for the Ironveil faction

Expected behavior:

1. Before any spawn, one line announces the active set for team.size: studio
2. Phase 1: narrative-director is spawned; writes a narrative brief draft to production/narrative/[content-slug]/brief.md defining the story beat, characters involved, emotional tone, and lore dependencies
3. AskUserQuestion presents the narrative brief; user approves before Phase 2 begins
4. Phase 2: world-builder, writer and art-director are spawned in parallel; world-builder drafts Ironveil lore entries, writer drafts dialogue using character voice profiles, and art-director drafts visual direction — each under production/narrative/[content-slug]/
5. Phase gate: all three Phase 2 outputs are collected, then AskUserQuestion presents the lore, dialogue and visual direction summaries; user approves before Phase 3 begins
6. Phase 3: level-designer is spawned; produces environmental storytelling layout, trigger placement, and pacing plan
7. AskUserQuestion presents level narrative plan; user approves before Phase 4 begins
8. Phase 4: narrative-director is spawned with the ND-CONSISTENCY gate; reviews voices, lore and pacing and returns APPROVE
9. AskUserQuestion presents review results; user approves before Phase 5 begins
10. Phase 5: writer, localization-lead, and world-builder are spawned in parallel; writer performs final self-review; localization-lead validates i18n compliance; world-builder finalizes canon levels
11. The orchestrator lists the final documents and asks once, "May I write these [N] narrative documents to design/narrative/?"; on approval it writes them
12. Final summary report is presented
13. Verdict: COMPLETE

Assertions:

• Active-set line naming team.size: studio appears before the first agent is spawned
• narrative-director is spawned in Phase 1 before any other agents
• AskUserQuestion appears after Phase 1 output and before Phase 2 launch
• world-builder, writer and art-director Agent calls are issued simultaneously in Phase 2 (not sequentially)
• level-designer is not launched until Phase 2 AskUserQuestion is approved
• narrative-director is re-spawned in Phase 4 using gate ND-CONSISTENCY — in every review mode, since it is this pipeline's own review and review_mode never skips it — and its APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT verdict decides whether Phase 5 starts
• Phase 5 spawns all three agents (writer, localization-lead, world-builder) simultaneously
• Each agent prompt names its draft path from the skill's path table
• Nothing is written under design/narrative/ before the single "May I write" approval
• Summary report includes: narrative brief status, lore entries created/updated, dialogue lines written, level narrative integration points, consistency review results
• The orchestrator writes nothing except the approved final documents
• Verdict is COMPLETE after delivery

---

Case 2: Lore Contradiction Found — world-builder finds conflict before writer proceeds

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• Existing lore entry at design/narrative/lore/ironveil-history.md states the Ironveil faction was founded 200 years ago
• The new narrative brief (from Phase 1) states the Ironveil were founded 50 years ago
• The writer has been spawned in parallel with the world-builder in Phase 2

Input: /team-narrative ironveil faction introduction cutscene

Expected behavior:

1. Phases 1–2 begin normally
2. Phase 2 world-builder detects a factual contradiction between the narrative brief and existing lore: founding date conflict
3. world-builder returns BLOCKED with reason: "Lore contradiction found — founding date conflicts with design/narrative/lore/ironveil-history.md"
4. Orchestrator surfaces the contradiction immediately: "world-builder: BLOCKED — Lore contradiction: founding date in narrative brief (50 years ago) conflicts with existing canon (200 years ago in ironveil-history.md)"
5. Orchestrator assesses dependency: the writer's dialogue depends on canon lore — the writer's draft cannot be finalized without resolving the contradiction
6. AskUserQuestion presents the error-recovery options:
   • Skip world-builder and note the gap in the final report
   • Retry with narrower scope (e.g., world-builder works against the canon the user confirms)
   • Stop here and resolve the contradiction in the lore docs first
7. Writer output is preserved in the partial report — work is not discarded
8. Orchestrator does NOT proceed to Phase 3 until the contradiction is resolved or user explicitly chooses to skip

Assertions:

• Contradiction is surfaced before Phase 3 begins
• Orchestrator does not silently resolve the contradiction by picking one version
• AskUserQuestion presents at least 3 options including "stop and resolve first"
• Writer's draft output is preserved in the partial report, not discarded
• Phase 3 (level-designer) is not launched until the user resolves the contradiction or explicitly chooses to skip world-builder
• Verdict is BLOCKED (not COMPLETE) if the user stops to resolve the contradiction

---

Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown

Fixture:

• Any project state

Input: /team-narrative (no argument)

Expected behavior:

1. Skill detects no argument is provided
2. Outputs usage guidance: e.g., "Usage: /team-narrative [narrative content description] [--review full|lean|solo] — describe the story content, scene, or narrative area to work on (e.g., boss encounter cutscene, faction intro dialogue, tutorial narrative)"
3. Skill exits without spawning any agents

Assertions:

• Skill does NOT spawn any agents when no argument is provided
• Usage message shows the full argument-hint — /team-narrative [narrative content description] [--review full|lean|solo] — and an argument example
• Skill does NOT attempt to guess or infer a narrative topic from project files
• No AskUserQuestion is used — output is direct guidance

---

Case 4: Localization Compliance — localization-lead blocks on a non-translatable string

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• Phases 1–4 complete successfully
• Phase 5 begins; writer and world-builder complete without issues
• localization-lead finds a dialogue line that uses a hardcoded formatted date string (e.g., "On March 12th, Year 3") that cannot survive locale-specific translation without a locale-aware formatter, and returns it as a BLOCKED item in its return contract

Input: /team-narrative ironveil faction introduction cutscene (Phase 5 scenario)

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 5 spawns writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel
2. localization-lead returns BLOCKED: "String key dialogue.ironveil.intro.003 contains a hardcoded date format (March 12th, Year 3) that will not localize correctly — requires a locale-aware date placeholder"
3. Orchestrator surfaces it immediately: "localization-lead: BLOCKED — [reason with the string key]"
4. writer's and world-builder's Phase 5 outputs are kept in the partial report
5. AskUserQuestion presents the error-recovery options:
   • Skip and note the gap in the final report (deliver with the string flagged)
   • Retry with narrower scope (e.g., the writer revises that one line, then localization-lead re-checks it)
   • Stop and resolve before finalizing
6. If the user skips, the final summary lists the unfixed string key among its unresolved items; if the user stops, the verdict is BLOCKED — [reason]

Assertions:

• localization-lead is spawned in Phase 5 simultaneously with writer and world-builder
• Hardcoded date format is identified as a localization blocker (not silently passed)
• The specific string key and reason are included in the surfaced BLOCKED message
• AskUserQuestion offers skip-and-note-gap, retry, and stop options
• If the user proceeds without fixing, the final report names the unfixed string key; if the user stops, the verdict is BLOCKED
• Skill does NOT automatically rewrite the offending line without user approval

---

Case 5: Writer Blocked — Missing character voice profiles

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• Phase 1 narrative-director produces a narrative brief referencing two characters: Commander Varek and Advisor Selene
• No character voice profiles exist in design/narrative/characters/ for either character
• Phase 2 begins; world-builder and art-director proceed normally

Input: /team-narrative ironveil surrender negotiation scene

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 1 completes; narrative brief lists Commander Varek and Advisor Selene as characters
2. Phase 2: writer is spawned in parallel with world-builder and art-director
3. writer returns BLOCKED: "Cannot produce dialogue — no voice profiles found for Commander Varek or Advisor Selene in design/narrative/characters/. Voice profiles required to match character tone and speech patterns."
4. Orchestrator surfaces the blocker immediately: "writer: BLOCKED — Missing prerequisite: character voice profiles for Commander Varek and Advisor Selene"
5. world-builder output is preserved; partial report is produced with lore entries
6. AskUserQuestion presents the error-recovery options:
   • Skip writer and note the gap in the final report
   • Retry with narrower scope (e.g., minimal voice direction supplied inline)
   • Stop here and create voice profiles before proceeding
7. Orchestrator does NOT proceed to Phase 3 (level-designer) without writer output unless the user explicitly chooses to skip

Assertions:

• Writer block is surfaced before Phase 3 begins
• world-builder's completed lore output is preserved in the partial report
• Missing prerequisite (voice profiles) is named specifically (character names and expected file path)
• AskUserQuestion offers at least one option to resolve the missing prerequisite
• Orchestrator does not fabricate voice profiles or invent character voices
• Phase 3 is not launched while writer is BLOCKED without explicit user authorization

---

Protocol Compliance

• At the default team.size: individual, the run opens with Active set (team.size: individual): writer. and a Not spawned this run: line naming narrative-director, world-builder, art-director, level-designer and localization-lead, consulted through writer — before any agent is spawned
• In collaborative mode, AskUserQuestion is used after every phase output before the next phase launches
• Parallel spawning: Phase 2 (world-builder + writer + art-director) and Phase 5 (writer + localization-lead + world-builder) issue all Agent calls before waiting for results
• No write under design/ happens without a "May I write" approval — design/ is outside the bounded exception (production/, docs/, tests/)
• At team.size: individual, Phase 4 does not spawn narrative-director; the output says "ND-CONSISTENCY not run — narrative-director is not active at team.size: individual; consistency self-checked by writer." and never presents the writer's self-check as the gate's verdict
• An ND-CONSISTENCY NOT ASSESSED [missing input] answer is never treated as APPROVE: the missing input is named, then either supplied and the gate re-run, or ND-CONSISTENCY: NOT ASSESSED — [input] is carried into the report's consistency review results and the verdict reads COMPLETE — consistency NOT ASSESSED ([input]), never a plain COMPLETE
• A phase whose named artifact is missing on disk is treated as failed, not done
• BLOCKED status from any agent is surfaced immediately — not silently skipped
• A partial report is always produced when some agents complete and others block
• Verdict is exactly COMPLETE, COMPLETE — consistency NOT ASSESSED ([input]) or BLOCKED — no other verdict values used
• Next Steps handoff references /design-review, /localize extract, and /dev-story

---

Coverage Notes

• Phase 3 (level-designer) and Phase 4 (narrative-director review) happy-path behavior are validated implicitly by Case 1. Separate edge cases are not needed for these phases as their failure modes follow the standard Error Recovery Protocol.
• The "Retry with narrower scope" and "Skip this agent" resolution paths from the Error Recovery Protocol are not separately walked to completion — Cases 2, 4 and 5 check that they are offered.
• Advisory localization concerns (e.g., German/Finnish +30% expansion warnings) are not given a case; Case 4 covers only a concern the localization-lead returns as BLOCKED.
• The writer's "all lines under 120 characters" and "string keys not raw strings" checks in Phase 5 are covered implicitly by Case 4's localization compliance scenario.
• The small active set (review_mode-dependent localization-lead and world-builder) is not given its own case.