Claude-Code-Game-Studios/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/agents/directors/art-director.md

Agent Test Spec: art-director

Agent Summary

Domain owned: Visual identity, art bible authorship and enforcement, asset quality standards, UI/UX visual design, visual phase gate, concept art evaluation. Does NOT own: UX interaction flows and information architecture (ux-designer's domain), audio direction (audio-director), code implementation. Gate IDs handled: AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL, AD-ART-BIBLE, AD-VISUAL, AD-PHASE-GATE.

---

Static Assertions (Structural)

Verified by reading the agent's .claude/agents/art-director.md frontmatter:

• description: field is present and domain-specific (references visual identity, art bible, asset standards — not generic)
• tools: includes Read (which also opens images for visual review) and Write/Edit for the art bible it maintains, and no Bash — disallowedTools: blocks it
• Model tier is inherit — frontmatter model: reads exactly inherit (tiers: .claude/docs/model-tiers.md)
• Agent definition does not claim authority over UX interaction flows or audio direction

---

Test Cases

Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output format

Scenario: A complete art bible is submitted for sign-off with the pillars and core fantasy, the platform constraints and the visual identity anchor chosen during brainstorm. Its color section defines a desaturated earth-tone primary palette with high-contrast accent colors tied to the game pillar "beauty in decay"; its shape language, asset standards and character direction are consistent with that section and within the stated platform constraints. Request is tagged AD-ART-BIBLE. Expected: Returns AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE with rationale confirming the palette's internal consistency and that the color system matches the pillar's mood target. Assertions:

• Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
• Verdict token is formatted as AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE
• Rationale references the specific palette characteristics and how they serve the "beauty in decay" mood target (the gate's color-vs-mood check) — not generic art advice
• Output stays within visual domain — does not comment on UX interaction patterns or audio mood

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

Scenario: Sound designer asks art-director to specify how ambient audio should layer and duck when the player enters a combat zone. Expected: Agent declines to define audio behavior and redirects to audio-director. Assertions:

• Does not make any binding decision about audio layering or ducking behavior
• Explicitly names audio-director as the correct handler
• Any comment it makes is about the zone's visual mood (e.g., "the audio should match the visual tension of the zone") — it specifies no layer, duck amount, fade time or trigger

Case 3: Gate verdict — correct vocabulary

Scenario: Right after pillars are locked, the concept and pillar set are submitted for a visual identity anchor. The three pillars are "fun combat," "great story," and "lots of content"; none of their design tests says anything about mood, atmosphere, or what the world should feel like, and no visual touchstones were given. Request is tagged AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL. Expected: Returns AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS — the gate's verdict for pillars that don't yet give enough direction to differentiate a visual identity — naming which pillars give no visual direction and what is missing (mood, shape language, color meaning). Assertions:

• Verdict is exactly one of CONCEPTS / STRONG / CONCERNS (the AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL verdicts) — not APPROVE / REJECT and not freeform text
• Verdict token is formatted as AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS
• Rationale names the specific pillars that give no visual direction and which of the gate's four direction components (visual rule, mood, shape language, color philosophy) they leave open — not a generic "pillars are vague"
• Does not rewrite the pillars itself — pillar changes go back to the user and creative-director

Case 4: Conflict escalation — correct parent

Scenario: ux-designer proposes using high-contrast, brightly colored icons for the HUD to improve readability. art-director believes this violates the art bible's muted visual language and would undermine the visual identity. Expected: art-director states the visual identity concern and references the art bible, acknowledges ux-designer's readability goal as legitimate, and escalates to creative-director to arbitrate the trade-off between visual coherence and usability. Assertions:

• Escalates to creative-director (shared parent for creative domain conflicts)
• Does not unilaterally override ux-designer's readability recommendation
• Clearly frames the conflict as a trade-off between two legitimate goals
• References the specific art bible rule being violated

Case 5: Context pass — uses provided context

Scenario: Agent receives a gate context block that includes the existing art bible with specific palette values (primary: #8B7355, #6B6B47; accent: #C8A96E) and style rules ("no pure white, no pure black; all shadows have warm undertones"). A new asset type is submitted for review: the first enemy sprite sheet, whose body colors come from the primary palette but whose outline is pure black (#000000), highlights pure white (#FFFFFF) and shadows a cool blue-grey (#5A6A7A). Request is tagged AD-VISUAL. Expected: Assessment references the specific hex values and style rules from the provided art bible, not generic color theory advice, and returns AD-VISUAL: REJECT — the sprite breaks all three style rules, a style violation to resolve before the asset type is used — with each violation tied to the rule it breaks. Assertions:

• References specific palette values from the provided art bible context
• Applies the specific style rules (no pure white/black, warm shadow undertones) from the provided document, naming the outline, highlight and shadow colors that break them
• Does not generate generic art direction feedback disconnected from the supplied art bible
• Verdict token is AD-VISUAL: REJECT, with rationale traceable to specific lines or rules in the provided context

Case 6: Missing gate input — NOT ASSESSED

Scenario: A complete, internally consistent art bible is submitted for sign-off with the pillars and the visual identity anchor, but no platform or performance constraints: the context gives none, project.yaml sets no platform.* or performance.* keys, and .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md still holds only unconfigured placeholders. Request is tagged AD-ART-BIBLE. Expected: Returns AD-ART-BIBLE: NOT ASSESSED, naming the platform and performance constraints as the input it could not read — without them, the gate's check that the asset standards are achievable on the platform cannot be made. Assertions:

• Verdict token is AD-ART-BIBLE: NOT ASSESSED — not APPROVE, although every section it could check is sound
• Names the platform and performance constraints as the missing input
• Does not assume a platform or budget to complete the review

---

Protocol Compliance

• Returns the verdict vocabulary the invoked gate's definition file lists — APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT for AD-ART-BIBLE and AD-VISUAL; CONCEPTS / STRONG / CONCERNS for AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL; READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY for AD-PHASE-GATE; NOT ASSESSED, naming the input, at any gate when an input the gate names is missing
• Stays within declared visual domain
• Escalates UX-vs-visual conflicts to creative-director
• Uses gate IDs in output (e.g., AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE) not inline prose verdicts
• Does not make binding UX interaction, audio, or code implementation decisions
• At a phase gate, treats an artifact the target phase requires that the calling skill passes as "none" as a finding (NOT READY or CONCERNS), and one passed as "not expected before [phase]" or "not required at workflow: [tier]" as no finding — it judges readiness for the phase being entered, not a later one

---

Coverage Notes

• AD-PHASE-GATE (full visual phase advancement) is not covered — deferred to integration with /gate-check skill.
• Asset pipeline standards (file format, resolution, naming conventions) compliance checks are not covered here.
• Shader visual output review is not covered — that interaction with the engine specialist is deferred.
• UI component visual review (as distinct from UX flow review) could benefit from additional cases.