Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/playtest-report/SKILL.md

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, model

name	description	argument-hint	user-invocable	allowed-tools	model
playtest-report	Structured playtest report template, or turn existing playtest notes into structured feedback.	[new|analyze path-to-notes] [--review full|lean|solo]	true	Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Agent, AskUserQuestion	sonnet

!source "${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR:-.}/.claude/hooks/yaml-helper.sh" 2>/dev/null && resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

See .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern. Individual gate definitions live in .claude/docs/director-gates/[gate-id].md — the spawned agent reads its own gate file; do not read it in the parent session.

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Determine the mode:

• new → generate a blank playtest report template
• analyze [path] → read raw notes and fill in the template with structured findings

---

Phase 2A: New Template Mode

Generate this template and output it to the user:

# Playtest Report

## Session Info
- **Date**: [Date]
- **Build**: [Version/Commit]
- **Duration**: [Time played]
- **Tester**: [Name/ID]
- **Platform**: [PC/Console/Mobile]
- **Input Method**: [KB+M / Gamepad / Touch]
- **Session Type**: [First time / Returning / Targeted test]

## Test Focus
[What specific features or flows were being tested]

## First Impressions (First 5 minutes)
- **Understood the goal?** [Yes/No/Partially]
- **Understood the controls?** [Yes/No/Partially]
- **Emotional response**: [Engaged/Confused/Bored/Frustrated/Excited]
- **Notes**: [Observations]

## Gameplay Flow
### What worked well
- [Observation 1]

### Pain points
- [Issue 1 -- Severity: High/Medium/Low]

### Confusion points
- [Where the player was confused and why]

### Moments of delight
- [What surprised or pleased the player]

## Bugs Encountered
| # | Description | Severity | Reproducible |
|---|-------------|----------|-------------|

## Feature-Specific Feedback
### [Feature 1]
- **Understood purpose?** [Yes/No]
- **Found engaging?** [Yes/No]
- **Suggestions**: [Tester suggestions]

## Quantitative Data (if available)
- **Deaths**: [Count and locations]
- **Time per area**: [Breakdown]
- **Items used**: [What and when]
- **Features discovered vs missed**: [List]

## Overall Assessment
- **Would play again?** [Yes/No/Maybe]
- **Difficulty**: [Too Easy / Just Right / Too Hard]
- **Pacing**: [Too Slow / Good / Too Fast]
- **Session length preference**: [Shorter / Good / Longer]

## Top 3 Priorities from this session
1. [Most important finding]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]

---

Phase 2B: Analyze Mode

Read the raw notes at the provided path. Cross-reference with existing design documents. Fill in the template above with structured findings. Flag any playtest observations that conflict with design intent.

---

Phase 3: Action Routing

Categorize all findings into four buckets:

• Design changes needed — fun issues, player confusion, broken mechanics, observations that conflict with the GDD's intended experience
• Balance adjustments — numbers feel wrong, difficulty too spiked or too flat
• Bug reports — clear implementation defects that are reproducible
• Polish items — not blocking progress, but friction or feel issues for later

Present the categorized list, then route:

• Design changes: "Run /propagate-design-change [path] on the affected design document to find downstream impacts before making changes."
• Balance adjustments: "Run /balance-check [system] to verify the full balance picture before tuning values."
• Bugs: "Use /bug-report to formally track these."
• Polish items: "Add to the polish backlog in production/ when the team reaches that phase."

---

Phase 3b: Creative Director Player Experience Review

Review mode check — apply before spawning CD-PLAYTEST:

• solo → skip. Note: "CD-PLAYTEST skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 4 (save the report).
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "CD-PLAYTEST skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 4 (save the report).
• full → spawn as normal.

After categorising findings, spawn creative-director via Agent using gate CD-PLAYTEST (.claude/docs/director-gates/cd-playtest.md).

Pass: the structured report content, game pillars and core fantasy (from design/gdd/game-concept.md), the specific hypothesis being tested. If game-concept.md does not exist — expected at minimal, where design/game-brief.md replaces it — pass the brief's pillars instead, and if neither exists say so in the prompt: "No pillars available — assess against the hypothesis alone." A director gate handed silence about pillars will invent them.

Present the creative director's assessment before saving the report. If CONCERNS or REJECT, add a ## Creative Director Assessment section to the report capturing the verdict and feedback. If APPROVE, note the approval in the report.

---

Phase 4: Save Report

Ask: "May I write this playtest report to production/qa/playtests/playtest-[date]-[tester].md?"

If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed.

---

Phase 5: Next Steps

Verdict: COMPLETE — playtest report generated.

• Act on the highest-priority finding category first.
• After addressing design changes: re-run /design-review on the updated GDD.
• After fixing bugs: re-run /bug-triage to update priorities.