Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

playtest-report

Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

Resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):

  1. If --review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use that
  2. Else read production/review-mode.txt → use that value
  3. Else → default to lean

See docs/framework/director-gates.md for the full check pattern.

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 Task using gate CD-PLAYTEST (docs/framework/director-gates.md).

Pass: the structured report content, game pillars and core fantasy (from design/gdd/game-concept.md), the specific hypothesis being tested.

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.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

adopt

Free

Brownfield onboarding — audits existing project artifacts for template format compliance (not just existence), classifies gaps by impact, and produces a numbered migration plan. Run this when joining an in-progress project or upgrading from an older template version. Distinct from /project-stage-detect (which checks what exists) — this checks whether what exists will actually work with the template's skills.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios99Updated Oct 7, 2026

Creates an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) documenting a significant technical decision, its context, alternatives considered, and consequences. Every major technical choice should have an ADR.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios99Updated Oct 7, 2026

Validates completeness and consistency of the project architecture against all GDDs. Builds a traceability matrix mapping every GDD technical requirement to ADRs, identifies coverage gaps, detects cross-ADR conflicts, verifies engine compatibility consistency across all decisions, and produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict. The architecture equivalent of /design-review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios99Updated Oct 7, 2026

Guided, section-by-section Art Bible authoring. Creates the visual identity specification that gates all asset production. Run after /concept-brainstorm is approved and before /map-systems or any GDD authoring begins.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios99Updated Oct 7, 2026

Generates placeholder .aseprite files from asset specs using the Aseprite MCP. Reads asset specs and art bible, creates sprites with correct dimensions/palette/layers, exports PNGs. Run after /asset-spec has produced specs and /art-bible exists.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios99Updated Oct 7, 2026

Audits game assets for compliance with naming conventions, file size budgets, format standards, and pipeline requirements. Identifies orphaned assets, missing references, and standard violations.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios99Updated Oct 7, 2026

See all skills by striderZA

Report a problem with this skill