Menu
Use when recursively deepening Chaos Redux mechanics, events, focus trees, countries, decisions, assets, lore, super-events, scripted GUI, formables, and implementation audits into concrete expansion specs and improvement handoffs.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Use when designing, implementing, auditing, or fixing Hearts of Iron IV decisions, missions, timed objectives, decision categories, and mission localisation.
Use when designing, implementing, auditing, or fixing Hearts of Iron IV national focus trees.
Use when implementing or updating Chaos Redux events.
Use when expanding Chaos Redux event ideas into detailed specifications before implementation.
Use when creating, sourcing, processing, converting, organizing, wiring, or documenting visual assets for Chaos Redux.
Use when designing, researching, wiring, or documenting Chaos Redux super-events.
Based on SOC occupation classification
| name | chaos-redux-improvement-loop |
| description | Use when recursively deepening Chaos Redux mechanics, events, focus trees, countries, decisions, assets, lore, super-events, scripted GUI, formables, and implementation audits into concrete expansion specs and improvement handoffs. |
Use this skill for loop improvement of Chaos Redux events and event-adjacent systems when a feature works, has a draft, or has an audit result, but the design still feels thin, generic, disconnected, static, or too small for the idea.
This skill writes expansion specs. It is not a checklist and it is not a code patch skill. The structure of each addendum should follow the mechanic. Some addenda need a route map. Some need a country package matrix. Some need a UI description. Some need a short design note that changes one decision category. The output should be open in form and concrete in content.
Use the chaosx_improvement_loop_planner subagent when the parent agent wants a plan-writing helper.
This skill is the main event-improvement loop for Chaos Redux. It is used after an event, mechanic, country package, decision system, focus route, formable, scripted GUI, asset set, or super-event has enough shape to evaluate, but before the main agent calls the event finished.
The loop should expand ideas and existing mechanics thoroughly using chaos-redux-event-planning as the quality standard. It should turn rough systems into playable designs with regional logic, player choices, AI behavior, consequences, visual support, and implementation-ready handoffs. It is especially useful for large event reworks where the first implementation pass creates many surfaces that now need deeper connections.
The loop should not write a checklist for the main agent to mechanically fill in. It should write a real expansion spec. The spec can include narrative paths, decision families, focus route architecture, country packages, formables, state groups, scripted GUI concepts, animated sprite needs, super-event thresholds, achievements, and acceptance criteria when those make the feature stronger.
A feature should not stop when it compiles. It can still fail if the player has no hard choices, the AI has no plan, the visuals are static, the focus tree is a reward ladder, the decisions are passive buttons, the country package is only a tag, or the event text promises a larger system than the mechanics deliver.
The improvement loop turns that weakness into a playable expansion spec. The spec should explain what the stronger version is, how it plays, how it escalates, how it can fail, what the AI does, what visual and text support is needed, and what the main agent should build.
Good improvement changes play. It does not only add size.
Use this skill during implementation or audit when a system feels technically present but thin.
Common triggers:
Do not use this skill to inflate simple bug fixes. Use it when the bug reveals a real design gap.
The main agent should actively deploy the improvement loop during large event implementation, especially after a meaningful tranche of work adds several new mechanics, countries, focus routes, formables, decision systems, scripted GUI elements, or super-event candidates. This is the best moment to ask whether the new surfaces are connected, reactive, regionally grounded, and worth playing.
Do not spawn the improvement loop planner repeatedly for the same event while the previous addendum is still waiting. Before another loop pass, the previous plan should be implemented, folded into docs/specs/<event_id>_<event_slug>_specs/, explicitly queued with a reason, or rejected with a reason. This prevents endless plan stacking.
A second loop pass is justified when the main agent has implemented the previous addendum and the new implemented layer creates new design questions. It is also justified after a completion auditor finds a different large design gap that was not covered by the previous plan.
The improvement loop is not infinite. Its job is to improve the event until the design is deep, connected, replayable, and clean enough to finish. If another expansion would add noise, bloat, repeated mechanics, unnecessary darkness, duplicate routes, or more maintenance burden than gameplay value, the loop should say so clearly.
The planner should recommend stopping expansion when all of these are true:
When this condition is met, the planner should not write a new large expansion. It should write a closure handoff instead. That handoff should list only the final small tasks, such as last localisation checks, final validation scenarios, asset handoff verification, spreadsheet alignment, audit reruns, or cleanup. It should explicitly say that broad expansion is no longer recommended because the system is now clean and additional mechanics would bloat it.
A closure handoff should not claim implementation completion on its own. It tells the main agent that the design loop can stop, the new plan can be finished, final validations can run, and the goal can be marked complete if the main agent verifies there are no blockers, simplifications, fallbacks, or unresolved accepted plans.
Use the system skill that owns the surface being improved.
chaos-redux-event-planning is the standard for expansion spec quality. The addendum should be idea-first, detailed, and implementation-ready, but not forced into a rigid template.chaos-redux-events owns event chains, event details, evolutions, event logs, docs, and catalog alignment.hoi4-focus-trees owns route depth, branch interaction, focus rewards, route AI, focus icons, and focus documentation.hoi4-decisions-missions owns decisions, missions, costs, objectives, scripted GUI decision surfaces, hidden decision visibility, tooltips, AI actions, and cleanup.chaos-redux-event-assets owns visual assets, animated sprites, animated portraits, source rules, DDS outputs, manifests, contact sheets, and sprite handoffs.chaos-redux-super-events owns super-event role, title, description, quote, audio, image, trigger, localisation, docs, and spreadsheet alignment.chaos-redux-subagents explains when to use a planner subagent, a patch-capable system subagent, an asset worker, a read-only auditor, or other subagents.Deep research is part of improvement, not decoration. When a feature has historical, cultural, political, regional, military, scientific, religious, or ideological inspiration, the loop should look for concrete anchors that can improve the design.
Research should help the planner find:
Use the approved repo research method from AGENTS.md when the existing files do not provide enough support. Do not invent source claims. If a historical connection is uncertain, mark it as uncertain and use it as inspiration rather than as a factual assertion.
The result should still play well. Research should make mechanics sharper, not turn the plan into a dry history note.
Full event specification packs belong under:
docs/specs/<event_id>_<event_slug>_specs/
Improvement addenda, audit follow-up plans, subagent handoffs, and implementation notes belong under:
docs/plans/<event_id>_<event_slug>_plans/
The plans folder is where subagents add working handoffs. The specs folder is where accepted source-of-truth event specs live.
If an improvement addendum is accepted as source design, the main agent should either implement it or fold the design into the relevant spec file under docs/specs/<event_id>_<event_slug>_specs/. Do not let accepted design live only as a loose plan if the final spec is meant to be complete.
Start with the feature promise. Ask what the player expects the system to be about.
A civil war event promises fear, rupture, faction choices, and aftermath. A formable route promises identity, territory, recognition, integration, and a new political horizon. A strange-state mechanic promises hidden logic, unsettling progression, and consequences that normal diplomacy cannot explain. A scripted GUI promises a system important enough to see and manage.
Then compare that promise with the current feature. The gap is the expansion target.
Do not turn every gap into more buttons. Some features need fewer buttons and clearer stakes. Some focus trees need stronger route locks, not more focuses. Some country packages need one memorable mechanic, not ten small modifiers. Some GUI panels need better hierarchy, not more art.
The structure should follow the mechanic. Write naturally, but make the design complete enough for implementation.
A strong addendum usually explains:
Use prose, route maps, state diagrams, package tables, UI descriptions, event families, decision groups, or branch maps only when they make the idea clearer. Avoid forcing every addendum into the same heading order.
Do not write vague lines such as add more flavor, make decisions deeper, add a hidden formable, improve AI, or add animations. Name the route, action, state group, cost type, reveal condition, failure consequence, asset family, and AI behavior where they matter.
Good improvement usually adds pressure, consequence, identity, or feedback.
Useful moves include:
Weak moves include more flat modifiers, more repeated buttons, more generic events, more hidden content without a reveal path, and more spectacle without gameplay.
For events, improve the incident into a chain or system only when the idea benefits from it. Ask what the event starts, what it pressures, what it changes, and what later systems remember.
An event addendum can define event families for escalation, negotiation, failure, outside reaction, and aftermath. It can define baseline stages that are not evolutions, true evolutions that unlock new behavior, decisions and missions, AI strategies, country-specific reactions, ideology-specific reactions, super-event thresholds, and defeat aftermath.
For focus trees, improve route meaning before adding length. A tree is the playable identity of a country. The player should be able to look at the branches and understand what kind of country they are building.
A focus addendum can define route families, branch interactions, route locks, crisis branches, late-game payoffs, hidden branches, anchor focus groups, and route AI. It does not need to list every focus unless the user asked for a focus-by-focus blueprint.
Good focus improvements make political choices alter industry, army, diplomacy, formables, internal factions, and expansion options. Industry supports a strategy. Expansion creates consequences. Diplomacy changes survival. Military branches solve concrete problems. Hidden branches have reveal logic and failure logic.
Do not reward every route with the same factories, equipment, stability, war support, and political power.
Decision systems should ask the player to do something. A decision commits resources, risks escalation, creates a timer, changes a value, targets a state, opens a mission, or shifts a route.
A decision addendum can define pressure values, timed missions, visible objectives, target states, costs beyond political power, AI equivalents, scripted GUI buttons, dynamic localisation, cleanup, and custom tooltips.
A decision category should not become a store. If it is only a store, redesign it around the action the country is taking.
Formables should matter when a country earns a larger identity. They can be public, route-locked, ideology-locked, hidden, high-chaos, event-created, leader-bound, artifact-bound, or tied to a specific prior crisis.
A formable addendum should explain the formation fantasy and the proof required. It should name the region clearly, describe required state groups or exact states when known, explain whether subjects or allies count, define the decision that forms it, and describe the cost of integration.
Formation can change tag or cosmetic tag, country name, adjective, flag, emblem, leader, party names, ideology, cores, claims, compliance, resistance, focus access, overlay routes, decisions, integration missions, faction behavior, diplomatic reactions, super-event eligibility, and achievements
Hidden formables require more design, not less. Define how the player discovers them, what conditions reveal the decision, what routes disqualify them, what assets are needed, how AI treats them, and how post-formation gameplay avoids instant runaway power.
Do not grant every core for free unless the story and balance justify it. Prefer staged integration for large, contested, foreign, or culturally mixed formables.
A scripted GUI is useful when the player needs to manage a living system visually. It is not useful when a normal decision category would be clearer.
A GUI addendum should describe what the player sees, what values matter, what buttons can be clicked, what costs they use, what tooltips explain, what states or targets are locked, what warning states appear, what animation communicates, and how the UI closes or changes when the mechanic ends.
Good scripted GUI use cases include congress vote boards, patron influence networks, formable progress panels, crisis meters, corruption webs, occult pressure seals, expedition logistics boards, faction cohesion screens, target cards, and reform panels with competing factions.
Every GUI action needs script ownership. Buttons need costs, requirements, tooltips, scripted effects, scripted triggers, AI equivalents, cleanup, and validation. Animation should clarify state. A glow can show availability. A pulse can show danger. A float loop can show active power. Particles can show high-chaos corruption. Animation should not replace readable text.
Animated leader portraits should be reserved for major identity changes, high-chaos leaders, supernatural leaders, final formables, route reveals, and dramatic defeat aftermath. Define the trigger, static fallback, source mode, visual mood, frame behavior, sprite handoff, and removal or replacement condition.
A country package is weak if it only has a tag, flag, leader, and generic tree. It should have a starting problem, a political identity, a reason to survive, and a route plan.
A country addendum can define why the country exists, what states it can receive, what states are claims only, how it avoids invalid map states, starting leader, ruling party, advisors, ideas, units, technology, industry, supply, focus or overlay route, decisions, missions, survival tools, formables, claims, integration routes, diplomatic ambitions, asset needs, historical source needs, AI behavior, and cleanup.
If a shared tag can appear through more than one event, define origin logic. The same tag can use different mechanics depending on release origin, formation origin, or route origin.
Visual improvement should support mechanic clarity. It should not become decoration detached from gameplay.
An asset addendum can define route-specific report images, decision icons, idea icons, focus icon families, flags, portraits, faction emblems, scripted GUI panels, animated sprites, animated portrait variants, progression states, and contact sheets.
For animated assets, define the state. The asset worker needs to know what frame set means inactive, active, dangerous, locked, completed, corrupted, hidden, or formed. The main agent needs static fallbacks and sprite names. The docs need manifest data to prove the asset was sourced or generated correctly.
Use source-based assets for real people, real flags, real symbols, and real historical images. Use generated assets for fictional, symbolic, supernatural, or impossible content. If an asset cannot be sourced or generated safely, mark it blocked instead of substituting a weak image.
A super-event addendum should explain why the moment is larger than a normal popup. Define the role first. Examples include first reveal, faction formation, global escalation, defeat aftermath, world-end threshold, hidden route reveal, final formable reveal, or regional order change.
A good super-event addendum includes trigger meaning, title direction, description direction, button tone, quote direction, image direction, audio direction, docs, and spreadsheet alignment. It should not choose a dramatic quote or image without a campaign threshold that justifies it.
Formables can deserve super-events when they alter a region, revive a major historical identity, complete a hidden route, or announce a new bloc. Most small formables do not need one.
AI depth is part of design, not a late patch. The addendum should explain how AI chooses routes and when it refuses risky actions.
AI should consider war state, stability, war support, industry, manpower, equipment, supply, enemy strength, faction membership, ideology, route flags, threat, distance, naval access, patronage, legitimacy, and scripted values. AI should not click hidden formables or dangerous GUI buttons only because they are available.
When the player has an interface, the AI needs an equivalent action path. It can use decisions, scripted effects, timed pulses, strategy plans, or weighted events. A human-only GUI with no AI equivalent is incomplete for systems that AI countries can use.
Use chaosx_improvement_loop_planner when the parent agent wants a helper to write event expansion addenda. That planner writes design handoffs under docs/plans/<event_id>_<event_slug>_plans/. It should not edit gameplay files, localisation files, GUI files, scripted effects, focus trees, decisions, assets, or spreadsheets.
The planner should be deployed during implementation when a large event has gained enough new content that the design needs a second pass. It should use chaos-redux-event-planning to expand the idea deeply, research historical and regional connections, define mechanics that the main agent can implement, and explain how the addendum should be promoted into specs if accepted.
The planner should not be deployed again for the same event until its previous addendum has been implemented, folded into specs, queued with a reason, or rejected with a reason. Audit subagents should point to the latest unresolved addendum before asking for another planner pass.
Audit subagents should use this skill when they find shallow design. They may include a compact improvement handoff in their audit. If the gap is broad enough to require new design, they should recommend chaosx_improvement_loop_planner or write a bounded plan if the parent explicitly asked for that kind of audit output.
Patch-capable subagents are active by default for small, file-specific improvements inside the current task scope. Examples include varied costs, clearer dynamic localisation, safer AI weights, missing trigger tooltips, small helper calls, cleanup hooks, route-aware icon references, and obvious formable requirement fixes. They should not expand a whole mechanic through a small patch. For broad expansions, they should write a plan handoff and leave implementation to the main agent.
The main agent decides what to do with the addendum. It can implement it now, queue it, reject it with a reason, or ask for a narrower pass.
Do not claim a major feature is complete while an accepted expansion addendum is unimplemented and unreported. If the addendum is queued, say where it is queued and why it was not included in the current implementation.
Accept an improvement when it makes the system more playable, reactive, readable, visually coherent, regionally specific, or integrated with Chaos Redux systems. Reject it when it only adds size, noise, difficulty, darkness, or spectacle without improving play.
If the improvement loop returns a closure handoff, the main agent should finish the listed final tasks, run final validations, confirm that no accepted plan remains unresolved, and then mark the goal complete only if the completion evidence supports it.