donchitos/claude-code-game-studios1 file

Playtest Report

Structured playtest report template, or turn existing playtest notes into structured feedback.

Specification
Skill ID
donchitos/claude-code-game-studios/playtest-report
Publisher
donchitos
Repository
claude-code-game-studios
Installs
0
Files
1
Synced
Sep 23, 2026
How to use it

Open any RiverX project, open the Skills panel in the chat, and search for this identifier. The files are fetched from the source repository at install time.

donchitos/claude-code-game-studios/playtest-reportInstalls these files
  • SKILL.md

What this skill tells the agent

!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.

Use this skill in a project

Open any RiverX project, search the Skills panel for donchitos/claude-code-game-studios/playtest-report, and install it in one click.

Use this skill