gamedesignos-workflow

name	gamedesignos-workflow
description	AI-native game design, concept validation, and prototyping system with evidence-first agent skills for analysis, concept architecture, and workflow evolution
triggers	["analyze this game's experience and create an evidence report","turn this game idea into a validated concept architecture","help me write a game design proposal","diagnose this game's experience density and retention issues","evolve this game design workflow with WOOP and OODA","translate this game design text to professional Chinese","curate these game design sources into a knowledge base","create a player promise contract for this concept"]

GameDesignOS Workflow Skill

Skill by ara.so — Design Skills collection.

GameDesignOS is an evidence-first agent skill system for game design analysis, concept architecture, validation planning, and AI workflow evolution. It transforms game experience diagnosis, concept development, proposal writing, experience-density optimization, and design knowledge curation into reusable, contract-driven agent instructions.

What GameDesignOS Does

GameDesignOS provides 7 specialized skills that work together through contracts (evidence indexes, player promises, validation plans, ED handoffs):

1. Game Experience Analyzer - Turn screenshots/recordings/PVs into timestamped evidence reports
2. Game Concept Architect - Convert ideas into player promises, core loops, and validation plans
3. Game Design Proposal Writer - Assemble research into decision-ready proposals
4. Game Experience Density Optimizer - Diagnose retention/pacing issues with A/B plans
5. Paranoia AI System Evolver - Upgrade workflows with WOOP/VOI/OODA/evals
6. Game Design Book Translator - Translate English design texts to professional Chinese
7. Game Design Source Curator - Build maintainable design knowledge bases

Installation

Clone the Repository

git clone https://github.com/ParanoiaGames/GameDesignOS.git
cd GameDesignOS

Install Skills in Your Agent Environment

Copy the skill folders you need into your agent's skill directory:

# For Cursor/Claude Code/Codex (example paths)
cp -r game-experience-analyzer/ ~/.cursor/skills/
cp -r game-concept-architect/ ~/.cursor/skills/
cp -r game-design-proposal-writer/ ~/.cursor/skills/
cp -r game-experience-density-optimizer/ ~/.cursor/skills/
cp -r paranoia-ai-system-evolver/ ~/.cursor/skills/
cp -r game-design-book-translator/ ~/.cursor/skills/
cp -r game-design-source-curator/ ~/.cursor/skills/

Verify Installation

Each skill has a SKILL.md manifest. Check that:

• The name field matches the folder name
• Relative links to references/, templates/, examples/ resolve correctly

# Verify a skill's structure
ls -la game-experience-analyzer/
# Should show: SKILL.md, references/, templates/, examples/

Core Skills and Usage Patterns

1. Game Experience Analyzer

Purpose: Convert game media (screenshots, gameplay recordings, trailers, PVs) into evidence-linked diagnosis reports.

Trigger:

Use $game-experience-analyzer to analyze this gameplay recording into timestamped evidence, Hook/Loop/Link/Surprise diagnosis, issue cards, and validation recommendations.

Input Types:

• Screenshots of gameplay moments
• Gameplay recording URLs or files
• Trailer/PV links (YouTube, Bilibili)
• Steam page media

Output Contract:

evidence_index:
  sample_boundary: "0:00-15:23 first session"
  timestamped_evidence:
    - timestamp: "0:34"
      frame: "./evidence/frame-0034.png"
      observation: "Tutorial skips player verb introduction"
      issue_severity: "high"
  
  hook_loop_link_surprise:
    hook: "Strong visual hook at 0:12 with city reveal"
    core_loop: "Build → Battle → Upgrade cycle clear at 2:45"
    link: "Weak motivation link between missions"
    surprise: "Boss reveal at 8:30 creates high interest"

issue_cards:
  - id: "ISS-001"
    type: "feature_exposure"
    priority: "P0"
    evidence: ["frame-0034.png", "frame-1205.png"]
    fix_hypothesis: "Add verb tutorial before first combat"

Example Usage:

# In your agent conversation:
"""
I have a 10-minute gameplay recording of our new roguelike.
Use $game-experience-analyzer to create an evidence report with:
- Timestamped feature exposure ledger
- Hook/Loop/Link/Surprise diagnosis
- Issue cards prioritized by retention risk
- Validation recommendations for A/B tests

Recording: ./recordings/session-001.mp4
"""

Real Example Output: See game-experience-analyzer/examples/survival-33-days-gameplay-experience-report.md for a 41-minute recording analyzed with timestamps, visual evidence, and actionable fixes.

2. Game Concept Architect

Purpose: Transform one-line game ideas into structured concept seeds, player promises, core loops, and validation plans.

Trigger:

Use $game-concept-architect to turn this game idea into a concept seed, player promise contract, core loop, scope gate, and prototype validation plan.

Input:

One-line idea: "A farming game where you grow magical creatures instead of crops"

Output Contract:

player_promise_contract:
  player_verbs: ["nurture", "harvest", "combine", "discover"]
  action_goal_alignment:
    core_action: "Daily creature care with visible trait evolution"
    short_term_goal: "Unlock new creature types (session)"
    medium_term_goal: "Master breeding combinations (week)"
    long_term_goal: "Complete creature compendium (month)"
  
  uncertainty_sources:
    - "Which trait combinations produce rare creatures?"
    - "What feeding patterns unlock evolution paths?"
  
  scope_gate:
    must_have: ["5 base creatures", "breeding system", "trait visualization"]
    nice_to_have: ["creature marketplace", "seasonal events"]
    out_of_scope: ["PvP battles", "multiplayer trading"]

validation_plan:
  prototype_scope: "Single creature lifecycle with 3 evolution paths"
  key_metrics: ["breeding attempts per session", "discovery moments per hour"]
  success_criteria: "60% of players attempt 3+ breedings in first session"

Example Usage:

# In your agent conversation:
"""
Use $game-concept-architect to develop this idea:

"A reverse tower defense where you play as the monsters trying to reach the castle, 
and you unlock new monster types by failing in creative ways"

I need:
- Concept seed with player verbs
- Player promise contract
- Core loop with 3 layers
- Scope gate for 3-month prototype
- Validation plan with testable hypotheses
"""

3. Game Design Proposal Writer

Purpose: Assemble concept briefs, evidence, and constraints into decision-ready proposals (publisher pitches, internal greenlight docs, vertical slice plans).

Trigger:

Use $game-design-proposal-writer to turn this concept brief, validation plan, evidence notes, and production constraints into a decision-ready commercial proposal.

Input Structure:

inputs:
  concept_brief: "./concepts/creature-farm-v2.md"
  evidence_index: "./evidence/prototype-playtest-2024-12.md"
  validation_plan: "./validation/breeding-engagement-test.md"
  production_constraints:
    team_size: 4
    timeline: "12 months"
    target_platform: "PC/Steam"

Output Contract:

proposal_structure:
  executive_summary:
    one_line_pitch: "Creature breeding farm with discovery-driven progression"
    target_audience: "Stardew Valley + Pokemon players (ages 16-35)"
    market_positioning: "Premium indie ($19.99), PC-first with console ports"
  
  proof_of_play:
    evidence: ["prototype-v2 playtest results", "wishlist conversion 8.2%"]
    validated_hooks: ["breeding discovery loop", "trait visualization joy"]
  
  scope_and_timeline:
    mvp_scope: "15 creatures, 3 biomes, breeding system"
    milestone_gates:
      - month_3: "Core loop validated (retention > 40%)"
      - month_6: "Content pipeline proven (1 creature/week)"
      - month_9: "Beta with 30 creatures, polish pass"
  
  risks_and_mitigation:
    - risk: "Breeding complexity overwhelming new players"
      evidence: "Playtest feedback 12/15 confused in first 10min"
      mitigation: "Simplified tutorial + progressive complexity"

Example Usage:

# In your agent conversation:
"""
Use $game-design-proposal-writer to create a publisher pitch using:

Concept: [paste creature farm concept]
Evidence: We have prototype playtest data showing 45% day-1 retention
Team: 4 people (2 engineers, 1 artist, 1 designer)
Timeline: 18 months to 1.0
Budget ask: $300k

Format: Publisher pitch deck outline with proof of play section
"""

4. Game Experience Density Optimizer

Purpose: Diagnose retention/pacing issues and create weekly A/B experiment plans with instrumentation.

Trigger:

Use $game-experience-density-optimizer to turn this first-session retention problem into ED diagnosis, weekly A/B variants, instrumentation, and rollback gates.

ED Framework:

experience_density_dimensions:
  CLP: "Core Loop Participation (actions/minute)"
  SF: "Soft Friction (waiting, confusion, busywork)"
  EB: "Embodiment (control responsiveness, feedback)"
  AR: "Atmospheric Richness (audiovisual coherence)"
  MD_min: "Minimum Discovery (new info/minute)"

Input Example:

problem_statement:
  metric: "Day 1 retention dropped from 42% to 31% after tutorial update"
  hypothesis: "New tutorial adds 8 minutes of soft friction before core loop"
  evidence: "./analytics/retention-drop-2024-12.csv"

Output Contract:

ed_diagnosis:
  current_state:
    CLP_first_10min: 2.1  # actions per minute
    SF_tutorial: 8.3      # minutes before first core action
    MD_min: 0.4           # discoveries per minute
  
  lever_recommendations:
    - lever: "SF_reduction"
      change: "Cut tutorial from 8min to 3min, defer advanced features"
      expected_delta: "SF: 8.3→3.1, CLP: 2.1→3.8"
      cost: "2 days implementation"

weekly_experiment:
  variant_matrix:
    control: "Current 8min tutorial"
    variant_a: "3min core tutorial, advanced defer to first use"
    variant_b: "Tutorial skippable after 1min with comeback hints"
  
  instrumentation:
    events:
      - "tutorial_started"
      - "tutorial_completed"
      - "first_core_action"
      - "session_10min_reached"
    dashboard_fields:
      - "tutorial_completion_rate"
      - "time_to_first_core_action"
      - "d1_retention_by_variant"
  
  decision_rules:
    success_criteria: 
     

Example Usage:

# In your agent conversation:
"""
Use $game-experience-density-optimizer to diagnose this problem:

Our puzzle game's first session used to average 12 minutes, now it's 8 minutes.
Completion rate stayed the same (78%) but day-7 retention dropped 40%→28%.

Create an ED diagnosis with:
- CLP/SF/EB/AR/MD-min measurements
- 3 variant hypotheses for weekly A/B test
- Telemetry event plan
- Pre-registered decision rules
- Rollback gates

Data: ./analytics/session-length-drop.csv
"""

Showcase Case: See docs/showcases/elliot-experience-density-report/ for a real demo ED analysis with screenshot evidence, metric horizon, and variant matrix.

5. Paranoia AI System Evolver

Purpose: Upgrade prompts, workflows, schemas, and agent rules with WOOP/VOI/OODA/evals/gates.

Trigger:

Use $paranoia-ai-system-evolver to upgrade this workflow with a WOOP Task Card, VOI, OODA, eval checks, Human Gate, and rollback.

WOOP Framework:

woop_task_card:
  wish: "Improve concept-to-prototype validation workflow"
  outcome: "80% of concepts have testable hypotheses before prototyping"
  obstacle: "Designers skip validation planning when excited about idea"
  plan: "Add validation gate to concept architect output contract"

VOI Calculation:

value_of_information:
  decision: "Should we add multiplayer to creature farm?"
  uncertainty_cost: "$120k dev cost × 60% failure risk = $72k"
  information_value: "1-week prototype test reduces risk to 20%"
  voi: "$72k - $24k - $8k (test cost) = $40k net value"
  recommendation: "Run test before committing to multiplayer"

Example Usage:

# In your agent conversation:
"""
Use $paranoia-ai-system-evolver to improve this prompt:

Current: "Analyze this game and tell me if it's good"

Issues:
- No evidence requirement
- Vague success criteria
- No output contract

Upgrade with:
- WOOP task card
- VOI calculation for analysis depth
- OODA loop for iterative refinement
- Eval checks for evidence quality
- Human gate for final judgment
- Rollback path if analysis is off-track
"""

6. Game Design Book Translator

Purpose: Translate English game design texts (books, essays, chapters) to professional Chinese with reviewable terminology.

Trigger:

Use $game-design-book-translator to translate and polish this game design chapter into professional Chinese, including terminology and figure captions.

Input Example:

# Chapter 3: The Core Loop

A game's core loop is the repeating cycle of actions that players perform most frequently.
In a shooter, this might be: aim → shoot → hit → reload.
In a strategy game: gather → build → attack → expand.

The strength of a core loop determines how engaging moment-to-moment play feels.

Output Contract:

translation_output:
  body: |
    # 第三章：核心循环
    
    游戏的核心循环（Core Loop）是玩家最频繁执行的重复性动作周期。
    在射击游戏中，这可能是：瞄准 → 射击 → 命中 → 装填。
    在策略游戏中：收集 → 建造 → 攻击 → 扩张。
    
    核心循环的强度决定了时刻体验的参与感。
  
  terminology_glossary:
    - source: "core loop"
      target: "核心循环"
      note: "保留英文以维持专业语境"
    - source: "moment-to-moment play"
      target: "时刻体验"
      alternatives: ["逐刻玩法", "即时体验"]

Example Usage:

# In your agent conversation:
"""
Use $game-design-book-translator to translate this essay:

[Paste English game design text]

Requirements:
- Professional Chinese game design terminology
- Keep key English terms in parentheses where standard
- Maintain formatting (headings, lists, emphasis)
- Create terminology glossary for review
"""

7. Game Design Source Curator

Purpose: Transform scattered articles, videos, creator profiles, and websites into a maintainable game design knowledge base.

Trigger:

Use $game-design-source-curator to review these game design sources and turn accepted items into a maintainable local knowledge base.

Input Example:

sources_to_review:
  - url: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=example"
    type: "video"
    topic: "roguelike progression design"
  - url: "https://www.gamedeveloper.com/example-article"
    type: "article"
    topic: "player onboarding patterns"
  - creator: "Mark Brown (Game Maker's Toolkit)"
    platform: "YouTube"

Output Contract:

knowledge_base_entry:
  id: "SOURCE-2024-001"
  title: "Roguelike Progression Design - Balancing Runs"
  type: "video"
  creator: "Game Maker's Toolkit"
  url: "https://youtube.com/watch?v=example"
  date_published: "2024-03-15"
  
  key_concepts:
    - "Meta-progression vs run-progression tension"
    - "Unlock pacing in roguelikes"
    - "Examples: Hades, Dead Cells, Slay the Spire"
  
  tags: ["roguelike", "progression", "meta-progression", "unlocks"]
  
  relevance_score: 9
  notes: "Strong examples from shipped games. Directly applicable to creature farm unlock design."
  
  citations:
    - project: "creature-farm"
      context: "Breeding unlock pacing reference"

Example Usage:

# In your agent conversation:
"""
Use $game-design-source-curator to process these sources:

1. Mark Brown's video on roguelike progression (YouTube link)
2. This GDC talk on onboarding (link)
3. Derek Yu's blog posts on Spelunky design

Create knowledge base entries with:
- Key concepts extracted
- Relevance scores for my creature breeding game
- Tagging for future search
- Citation recommendations
"""

Contract-Driven Workflow Chains

GameDesignOS skills pass structured contracts to enable multi-step workflows:

Chain 1: Idea → Validated Concept → Proposal

step_1:
  skill: game-concept-architect
  input: "One-line game idea"
  output_contract: "player_promise_contract + validation_plan"

step_2:
  skill: game-experience-analyzer
  input: "Early prototype recording + validation_plan from step 1"
  output_contract: "evidence_index + issue_cards"

step_3:
  skill: game-design-proposal-writer
  input: "player_promise_contract + evidence_index + team_constraints"
  output_contract: "decision_ready_proposal"

Example:

# Step 1: Architect the concept
"""
Use $game-concept-architect:
Idea: "Reverse tower defense where you play as monsters and unlock types by failing creatively"
"""

# Step 2: Analyze prototype evidence
"""
Use $game-experience-analyzer:
Recording: ./prototypes/reverse-td-playtest-01.mp4
Validation plan: [paste from step 1]
"""

# Step 3: Write the proposal
"""
Use $game-design-proposal-writer:
Concept: [paste from step 1]
Evidence: [paste from step 2]
Team: 3 people, 12 months
Format: Internal greenlight proposal
"""

Chain 2: Retention Problem → ED Diagnosis → Validated Fix

step_1:
  skill: game-experience-analyzer
  input: "Current build recording"
  output_contract: "evidence_index with retention issues flagged"

step_2:
  skill: game-experience-density-optimizer
  input: "evidence_index + retention metrics"
  output_contract: "ed_diagnosis + weekly_experiment_plan"

step_3:
  skill: paranoia-ai-system-evolver
  input: "weekly_experiment_plan"
  output_contract: "instrumentation + decision_rules + rollback_gates"

Configuration and Environment

GameDesignOS skills are self-contained Markdown packages with no external dependencies. Configuration is embedded in skill frontmatter:

# Example: game-experience-analyzer/SKILL.md frontmatter
name: game-experience-analyzer
version: "0.6.1"
domain: game-design
method: evidence-first
contracts:
  output: evidence_index
  required_fields: [sample_boundary, timestamped_evidence, issue_cards]

Environment Variables

If you extend skills with external tools (e.g., video analysis APIs), reference environment variables:

# Example: hypothetical video analysis extension
import os

VIDEO_API_KEY = os.getenv("GAMEDESIGN_VIDEO_API_KEY")
if not VIDEO_API_KEY:
    print("Warning: GAMEDESIGN_VIDEO_API_KEY not set. Using manual timestamp extraction.")

Do not hardcode API keys. Always use environment variables.

Common Patterns and Best Practices

Pattern 1: Evidence-First Analysis

Always ground judgments in timestamped, visual, or metric evidence:

# Good: Evidence-linked issue
issue:
  id: "ISS-042"
  observation: "Player confused about crafting UI"
  evidence:
    - type: "screenshot"
      path: "./evidence/frame-0523.png"
      timestamp: "5:23"
      note: "Player hovers over 3 buttons without clicking"
    - type: "playtest_quote"
      participant: "P07"
      quote: "I don't know which button starts crafting"

# Bad: Vague opinion
issue: "The crafting UI is confusing and needs improvement"

Pattern 2: Player Promise Contract

Always define player verbs, action-goal alignment, and uncertainty sources:

player_promise:
  core_verbs: ["explore", "collect", "combine", "discover"]
  
  action_goal_alignment:
    immediate_action: "Explore 1 room, collect 1 ingredient"
    session_goal: "Discover 2 new recipes"
    weekly_goal: "Unlock advanced crafting station"
  
  uncertainty_sources:
    - "Which ingredient combinations work?"
    - "Where are rare ingredients hidden?"
  
  validation_hypothesis: 
    "If players discover ≥2 recipes in first session, 
     60% will return next day"

Pattern 3: Rollback Gates in Experiments

Every A/B test needs pre-registered rollback rules:

experiment:
  variant: "Tutorial reduced from 8min to 3min"
  
  rollback_triggers:
    - condition: "Completion rate < 70% (vs 78% baseline)"
      sample_size: "500 users"
      action: "Revert to 8min tutorial, analyze drop-off points"
    
    - condition: "Day-7 retention < 25% (vs 28% baseline)"
      sample_size: "1000 users"
      action: "Rollback + add deferred tutorial hints"
  
  success_criteria:
    - "Day-1 retention > 35% (vs 31% baseline)"
    - "Time-to-first-action < 4min (vs 9min baseline)"
    - "Day-7 retention ≥ 28% (no regression)"

Pattern 4: Human Gates for Critical Decisions

Use Human Gates before committing to large changes:

decision_gate:
  decision: "Add multiplayer feature (12 weeks dev time)"
  
  pre_gate_requirements:
    - "VOI calculation showing >$50k net value"
    - "Prototype test with 50 users showing >70% interest"
    - "Technical feasibility audit complete"
  
  human_review_questions:
    - "Does this align with our 6-month roadmap?"
    - "Do we have server infrastructure budget?"
    - "What scope cuts needed to fit timeline?"
  
  post_gate_action:
    approved: "Proceed with multiplayer, defer creature types 6-8"
    rejected: "Focus on single-player depth, revisit in 6 months"

Troubleshooting

Skill Not Found by Agent

Problem: Agent says "I don't recognize the $game-experience-analyzer skill"

Solution:

1. Verify the skill folder is in your agent's skill directory
2. Check that SKILL.md exists in the root of the skill folder
3. Ensure the name field in YAML frontmatter matches the folder name

# Verify structure
ls -la ~/.cursor/skills/game-experience-analyzer/
# Should show: SKILL.md, references/, templates/, examples/

# Check frontmatter
head -n 5 ~/.cursor/skills/game-experience-analyzer/SKILL.md
# Should show: --- name: game-experience-analyzer ...

Relative Links Broken

Problem: Skill references show as broken links

Solution: GameDesignOS skills use relative paths. Ensure you copied the entire folder structure:

game-experience-analyzer/
├── SKILL.md
├── references/
│   ├── hook-loop-link-surprise.md
│   └── evidence-standards.md
├── templates/
│   └── evidence-index-template.yaml
└── examples/
    └── survival-33-days-gameplay-experience-report.md

If you moved files, update relative links in SKILL.md:

# Before (if you flattened structure)
See [Hook/Loop/Link/Surprise](./references/hook-loop-link-surprise.md)

# After (if references/ folder is missing)
See [Hook/Loop/Link/Surprise](./hook-loop-link-surprise.md)

Output Missing Contract Fields

Problem: Skill output is prose instead of structured contract

Solution: Explicitly request contract format in your prompt:

# Vague prompt (may produce prose)
"Analyze this game"

# Contract-requesting prompt (produces structured output)
"""
Use $game-experience-analyzer to analyze this recording.

Output format: evidence_index contract with:
- sample_boundary
- timestamped_evidence (array of timestamp/frame/observation)
- hook_loop_link_surprise (object)
- issue_cards (array with id/type/priority/evidence/fix_hypothesis)
"""

Validation Plan Too Abstract

Problem: Validation plans say "test with users" without metrics

Solution: Request hypothesis + metric + success criteria:

# Abstract (not actionable)
"Test if players like the breeding system"

# Concrete (actionable)
"""
Validation hypothesis:
"If players discover ≥2 breeding combinations in first 15 minutes,
 60% will return for a second session"

Metric: breeding_discoveries_per_session
Success criteria: ≥60% session-2 return rate (p<0.05, n≥100)
Instrumentation: Log 'breeding_attempt', 'breeding_success', 'discovery_moment'
"""

Advanced Usage: Custom Skill Extensions

You can extend GameDesignOS skills by adding custom references or templates:

Add a Custom Analysis Lens

Create a new reference document:

// game-experience-analyzer/references/custom-lens-puzzle-difficulty.md

# Puzzle Difficulty Lens

## Observation Dimensions

1. **First-Attempt Success Rate**
   - Baseline: 30-40% for well-tuned puzzles
   - Evidence: Count players who solve without hints

2. **Time-to-Hint Request**
   - Baseline: 2-3 minutes optimal struggle time
   - Evidence: Log time between puzzle_start and hint_request

3. **Abandon Rate**
   - Baseline: <10% puzzle abandonment
   - Evidence: puzzle_start without puzzle_complete in 10min

## Issue Cards

If first-attempt success >70%: "Puzzle too easy, reduce clarity or add red herrings"
If time-to-hint <60s: "Puzzle unclear, improve visual communication"
If abandon rate >20%: "Puzzle too hard, add progressive hints"

Reference it in your prompt:

"""
Use $game-experience-analyzer with custom-lens-puzzle-difficulty reference
to analyze this puzzle game recording.
"""

Create a Custom Template

Add a team-specific proposal template:

# game-design-proposal-writer/templates/custom-internal-greenlight.yaml

internal_greenlight_template:
  sections:
    - title: "One-Line Pitch"
      required: true
      max_length: "100 chars"
    
    - title: "Strategic Alignment"
      questions:
        - "Does this fit our 2-year portfolio vision?"
        - "Does this leverage our core tech/IP?"
    
    - title: "Proof of Play"
      required_evidence:
        - "Prototype playtest results (n≥20)"
        - "Key metric: session length, retention, or engagement"
    
    - title: "Resource Request"
      fields:
        - team_size
        - timeline_months
        - external_costs
    
    - title: "Risk Register"
      required_risks: ["technical", "market", "team"]
      mitigation_required: true
    
    - title: "Decision Request"
      options: ["Greenlight", , ]

Use it in proposals:

"""
Use $game-design-proposal-writer with custom-internal-greenlight template
to format this concept for our Q2 greenlight review.
"""

Real-World Workflow Example

Here's a complete workflow from idea to validated proposal:

# Day 1: Concept Generation
"""
Use $game-concept-architect:

Idea: "A city builder where buildings have personalities and relationships, 
       and you balance industrial efficiency with neighborhood harmony"

Requirements:
- Player verbs and action-goal alignment
- Player promise contract
- Core loop (3 layers)
- Scope gate for 6-month prototype
- Validation plan with testable hypothesis
"""
# Output: concept_seed.yaml, player_promise.yaml, validation_plan.yaml

# Day 2-7: Build Prototype
# [Prototype a 5-minute slice: place 3 buildings, see personality reactions]

# Day 8: Evidence Collection
"""
Use $game-experience-analyzer:

Recording: ./prototypes/city-personalities-playtest-01.mp4
Validation plan: [paste validation_plan.yaml from Day 1]

Focus on:
- First building placement (Hook)
- Personality reveal moments (Surprise)
- Does harmony mechanic create meaningful choices? (Loop)
"""
# Output: evidence_index.yaml with timestamps and issue cards

# Day 9: Retention Diagnosis
"""
Use $game-experience-density-optimizer:

Problem: First playtest showed players quit after 3 buildings (6 min average session).
Expected: 10 min session with 6-8 buildings placed.

Evidence: [paste evidence_index.yaml]

Create:
- ED diagnosis (CLP/SF/EB/AR/MD-min)
- Weekly A/B variants (3 options)
- Instrumentation plan
- Decision rules and rollback gates
"""
# Output: ed_diagnosis.yaml, weekly_experiment.yaml

# Day 10: Proposal Assembly
"""
Use $game-design-proposal-writer:

Format: Internal greenlight proposal

Inputs:
- Concept: [paste player_promise.yaml]
- Evidence: [paste evidence_index.yaml]
- ED diagnosis: [paste ed_diagnosis.yaml]
- Team: 4 people (2 eng, 1 artist, 1 designer)
- Timeline: 6 months to playable vertical slice
- Budget: Internal (no external costs)

Include:
- Proof of play section with personality mechanic validation
- Risk: Harmony mechanic may be too abstract
- Decision request: Greenlight 6-month