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

Skill Test Spec: /team-level

Skill Summary

Orchestrates the full level design team for a single level or area. Coordinates narrative-director, world-builder, level-designer, systems-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist, and qa-tester through five steps: narrative + visual direction in parallel (Step 1), layout (Step 2), systems (Step 3), production concepts + accessibility in parallel (Step 4), and QA planning (Step 5). Phase 0 resolves review_mode, automation and team.size and the skill announces the active set before Step 1 — individual spawns level-designer alone, small adds systems-designer + art-director + qa-tester, studio adds narrative-director, world-builder and accessibility-specialist. The orchestrator compiles all team outputs itself and writes design/levels/[level-name].md only after asking "May I write…?" via AskUserQuestion; per-agent artifacts are written by sub-agents under the bounded write exception. Uses AskUserQuestion at each step gate. Produces a summary report with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to /design-review, /dev-story, /qa-plan.

---

Static Assertions (Structural)

• Has required frontmatter fields: name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools
• Has ≥2 phase/step headings (Step 1 through Step 5 are all present)
• Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
• File Write Protocol: per-agent artifacts are written by sub-agents under the bounded exception (named path, new artifact under production/, docs/ or tests/, gated step); the one exception is the compiled level doc, which the orchestrator writes itself after its own "May I write …?" prompt
• Names a destination per agent under production/levels/[level-name]/ — narrative.md, lore.md, visual-direction.md, layout.md, systems.md, production-concepts.md, accessibility.md — and qa-tester's at production/qa/test-cases/[level-name]-cases.md
• 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, /dev-story, /qa-plan)
• Error Recovery Protocol section is present: verify a named artifact is on disk before treating a step as done, surface BLOCKED immediately, always produce a partial report, full procedure (surface → assess → options → partial report) in .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md
• Uses AskUserQuestion at step transitions for user approval before proceeding (collaborative mode)
• Phase 0 resolves team.size, and the skill requires a one-line active-set announcement before Step 1
• Step 1 explicitly spawns narrative-director, world-builder and art-director in parallel
• Step 4 is explicitly marked as parallel (art-director and accessibility-specialist run simultaneously) and waits for both
• Context gathering reads: design/gdd/game-concept.md (or design/game-brief.md), design/gdd/game-pillars.md, design/levels/, design/narrative/, and relevant world-building docs
• ## How to Delegate lists all seven roles (narrative-director, world-builder, level-designer, systems-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist, qa-tester)
• accessibility-specialist output includes severity ratings (BLOCKING / RECOMMENDED / NICE TO HAVE)
• Final level design document saved to design/levels/[level-name].md, where [level-name] is the argument slugged — lowercase, spaces → hyphens — and adjacent-area paths use the same rule

---

Test Cases

Case 1: Happy Path — All team members produce outputs, document compiled and saved

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• design/gdd/game-concept.md exists and is populated
• design/gdd/game-pillars.md exists
• design/levels/ directory exists (may contain other level docs)
• design/narrative/ directory exists with relevant narrative docs
• World-building docs for the forest region exist

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Before any spawn, one line announces the active set for team.size: studio
2. Context gathering — orchestrator reads game-concept.md, game-pillars.md, existing level docs in design/levels/, narrative docs in design/narrative/, and world-building docs for the forest region
3. Step 1 — narrative-director, world-builder and art-director are spawned together (all three Agent calls issued before any result is awaited): narrative purpose and emotional arc; lore context and world rules; visual theme targets, lighting mood, shape language and landmarks; AskUserQuestion presents all three outputs before Step 2
4. Step 2 — level-designer spawned with the Step 1 outputs, including the art-director's visual targets as explicit constraints; designs spatial layout, pacing curve, encounters, puzzles, entry/exit points; orchestrator checks design/levels/ for every adjacent area referenced; AskUserQuestion confirms layout before Step 3
5. Step 3 — systems-designer spawned: enemy compositions, loot tables, difficulty balance, area-specific mechanics, resource distribution; AskUserQuestion confirms systems before Step 4
6. Step 4 — art-director (location-specific production concepts) and accessibility-specialist spawned in parallel; each accessibility concern rated BLOCKING / RECOMMENDED / NICE TO HAVE; orchestrator waits for both; AskUserQuestion presents both outputs before Step 5
7. Step 5 — qa-tester spawned: test cases for critical path, boundary/edge cases (sequence breaks, softlocks), playtest checklist, acceptance criteria
8. Orchestrator compiles all team outputs into the level design template itself — it does not re-spawn level-designer to do it — then asks via AskUserQuestion: "May I write the compiled level design to design/levels/forest-dungeon.md?" and writes on approval
9. Summary report: area overview, encounter count, estimated asset list, narrative beats, cross-team dependencies, open cross-level dependencies, accessibility concerns with resolution status; verdict: COMPLETE
10. Next steps listed: /design-review design/levels/forest-dungeon.md, /dev-story, /qa-plan

Assertions:

• Active-set line naming team.size: studio appears before the first agent is spawned
• All five sources read during context gathering before any agent is spawned
• narrative-director, world-builder and art-director Agent calls are issued in parallel in Step 1, and all three complete before Step 2
• The level-designer brief carries the art-director's Step 1 visual targets as constraints
• AskUserQuestion called at each step gate (minimum: after Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, Step 4)
• Step 4 agents (art-director, accessibility-specialist) launched simultaneously
• The compiled level doc is written by the orchestrator, not a re-spawned agent, and only after its own "May I write" approval
• Level doc saved to design/levels/forest-dungeon.md (slugified from argument)
• Verdict COMPLETE in final summary report
• Next steps include /design-review, /dev-story, /qa-plan
• Summary report includes: area overview, encounter count, estimated asset list, narrative beats

---

Case 2: Blocked Agent (world-builder) — Partial report produced with gap noted

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• design/gdd/game-concept.md exists
• World-building docs for the forest region do NOT exist
• world-builder agent returns BLOCKED: "No world-building docs found for the forest region — cannot provide lore context"

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Context gathering completes
2. Step 1 — narrative-director and art-director complete successfully; world-builder returns BLOCKED
3. Error Recovery Protocol triggered: "world-builder: BLOCKED — no world-building docs for forest region"
4. AskUserQuestion presented with options:
   • (a) Skip world-builder and note the gap in the final report
   • (b) Retry with narrower scope (world-builder focuses only on what can be inferred from game-concept.md)
   • (c) Stop here and create world-building docs first
5. If user chooses (a): pipeline continues with Steps 2–5 without a lore foundation; the missing world-building context is listed as a gap in the final report
6. If the world-builder remains unresolved, the final report marks the world-builder section BLOCKED and the overall verdict is BLOCKED

Assertions:

• BLOCKED surface message appears immediately when world-builder fails — before Step 2 begins without user input
• AskUserQuestion offers at minimum three options (skip / retry / stop)
• Partial report produced — narrative-director's and art-director's completed work is not discarded
• The missing world-building context is named as a gap in the final report
• Overall verdict is BLOCKED (not COMPLETE) when world-builder remains unresolved
• Nothing is written in world-builder's place — the protocol's option is "skip this agent and note the gap" (.claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md), not substitute lore

---

Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown

Fixture:

• Any project state

Input: /team-level (no argument)

Expected behavior:

1. Skill detects no argument provided
2. Outputs usage message explaining the required argument (level name or area to design)
3. Shows the invocation format /team-level [level name or area to design] [--review full|lean|solo] with examples (forest temple, tutorial village, final boss arena)
4. Skill exits without reading any project files or spawning any subagents

Assertions:

• Skill does NOT spawn any subagents when no argument is given
• Usage message shows the full argument-hint: /team-level [level name or area to design] [--review full|lean|solo]
• At least one example of a valid invocation is shown
• No GDD or level files read before failing
• Verdict is NOT shown (pipeline never starts)

---

Case 4: Accessibility Review Gate — Blocking concern surfaces before sign-off

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: team.size: studio, automation: collaborative
• Steps 1–3 complete successfully
• design/accessibility-requirements.md committed tier: Standard
• accessibility-specialist (Step 4, parallel) flags a BLOCKING concern: the critical path through the forest dungeon requires players to distinguish between two environmental hazards (toxic pools vs. shallow water) using color alone — no shape, icon, or audio cue differentiates them

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Steps 1–3 complete; Step 4 parallel phase begins
2. accessibility-specialist returns: BLOCKING concern — "Critical path hazard distinction relies on color only (toxic pools vs. shallow water). Shape, icon, or audio cue required per Standard accessibility tier."
3. art-director returns Step 4 output (complete)
4. Skill presents both Step 4 results via AskUserQuestion — BLOCKING concern highlighted prominently
5. AskUserQuestion offers:
   • (a) Return to level-designer + art-director to redesign the flagged elements before Step 5
   • (b) Document as a known accessibility gap and proceed to Step 5 with the concern explicitly logged in the final report
6. Skill does NOT proceed to Step 5 until the user acknowledges the BLOCKING concern
7. Final summary lists the accessibility concern and its resolution status regardless of user choice

Assertions:

• BLOCKING accessibility concern is not treated as advisory — it is surfaced as a blocker
• AskUserQuestion presents the specific concern text (not just "accessibility issue found")
• Step 5 (qa-tester) does NOT begin without user acknowledging the BLOCKING concern
• Revision path offered: level-designer + art-director can be sent back before proceeding
• Final report includes the accessibility concern and its resolution status
• art-director's completed output is NOT discarded when accessibility-specialist blocks

---

Case 5: Circular Level Reference — Adjacent area dependency flagged

Fixture:

• Resolved config block: automation: collaborative (any team.size — level-designer is active at every size)
• Steps 1–3 in progress
• level-designer (Step 2) produces a layout that specifies entry/exit points connecting to "the crystal caves" (an adjacent area)
• design/levels/crystal-caves.md does NOT exist — the crystal caves area has not been designed yet

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Step 2 — level-designer produces layout including: "West exit connects to crystal-caves entry point A"
2. Orchestrator checks design/levels/ for crystal-caves.md; file not found
3. Dependency gap surfaced: "Level references crystal-caves as an adjacent area but design/levels/crystal-caves.md does not exist"
4. AskUserQuestion presented with options:
   • (a) Proceed with a placeholder reference — note the dependency in the level doc as UNRESOLVED
   • (b) Pause and run /team-level crystal caves first to establish that area
5. Skill does NOT invent crystal caves content to satisfy the reference
6. If user chooses (a): level doc compiled with the west exit marked UNRESOLVED; flagged in the open cross-level dependencies section of the summary report
7. Final report includes open cross-level dependencies section

Assertions:

• Skill detects the missing adjacent area by checking design/levels/ — does not assume it will be created later
• Skill does NOT fabricate crystal caves content (lore, layout, connections) to resolve the reference
• AskUserQuestion offers a "design crystal caves first" option referencing /team-level
• If user proceeds with placeholder, level doc explicitly marks the west exit as UNRESOLVED
• Summary report includes an open cross-level dependencies section listing unresolved references
• Circular or forward references do not cause the skill to loop or crash

---

Protocol Compliance

• At the default team.size: individual, the run opens with an Active set (team.size: individual): level-designer line and a Not spawned this run: line naming every other agent the pipeline names — before any agent is spawned
• In collaborative mode, AskUserQuestion used at each step transition — user approves before pipeline advances
• Per-agent artifacts are written by sub-agents to paths the orchestrator named; only the compiled level doc is written by the orchestrator, after its own AskUserQuestion approval
• A step whose named artifact is missing on disk is treated as failed, not done
• Error Recovery Protocol followed: surface → assess → offer options → partial report
• Step 1 (narrative-director, world-builder, art-director) and Step 4 (art-director, accessibility-specialist) launched in parallel per skill spec
• Partial report always produced even when agents are BLOCKED
• Accessibility BLOCKING concerns surface before Step 5 and require explicit user acknowledgment
• Verdict is one of COMPLETE / BLOCKED
• Next steps present at end: /design-review, /dev-story, /qa-plan

---

Coverage Notes

• The "Retry with narrower scope" option in the blocked world-builder case (Case 2) — the retry behavior itself is not tested in depth; its full path is analogous to the blocked agent pattern covered in Case 2 and in other team-* specs.
• systems-designer (Step 3) block scenarios are not separately tested; the same Error Recovery Protocol applies and the pattern is validated by Case 2.
• Step 4 parallel ordering (art-director completing before or after accessibility-specialist) does not affect outcomes — both must return before Step 5 regardless of order.
• The level doc slug rule (lowercase, spaces → hyphens) is exercised by Case 1 (forest dungeon → forest-dungeon.md) and Case 5 (crystal caves → crystal-caves.md); special characters and very long names are not covered.
• The small active set (systems-designer + art-director added) is not given its own case.