| name | concept-validator |
| description | Validate game concepts by analyzing technical feasibility, scope warnings, and comparing to similar games. Use this when the user has a game idea that needs stress-testing. |
| domain | design |
| type | validator |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| allowed-tools | ["Write","WebSearch"] |
Game Concept Validator Skill
This skill stress-tests game concepts by analyzing technical feasibility, identifying scope risks, and providing realistic assessments based on similar games and industry patterns.
Workflow Context
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Assigned Agent | design-lead |
| Sprint Phase | Pre-sprint ideation |
| Directory Scope | docs/ideas/ |
| Workflow Reference | See docs/agent-team-workflow.md |
When to Use This Skill
Invoke this skill when the user:
- Says "validate this game concept"
- Asks "is this game idea feasible?"
- Presents a game concept and wants reality-check
- Says "can I build [game description]?"
- Asks "what are the risks of this idea?"
- Wants to know "how long would this take?"
- Needs to convince stakeholders (team, investors, etc.)
Core Principle
Honest, constructive validation that:
- ✅ Identifies technical challenges early
- ✅ Provides realistic scope estimates
- ✅ Compares to proven similar games
- ✅ Highlights both strengths and risks
- ✅ Suggests scope adjustments if needed
- ✅ Empowers informed decision-making
This is NOT a "yes/no" tool - it's a reality check that helps users build smarter.
Input Requirements
The skill needs the user to provide:
Required Information
- Game Concept Description
- Core gameplay loop
- Primary mechanics
- Genre/style
- Target experience
Contextual Information (Ask if missing)
-
Development Context
- Timeline (days/weeks/months)
- Team size and roles
- Engine/tools being used
- Experience level
-
Scope Parameters
- Target platform
- Expected playtime/content
- Production quality expectations
- Must-have vs nice-to-have features
Validation Workflow
Phase 1: Concept Analysis
Extract and categorize:
-
Core Mechanics
- What are the primary gameplay mechanics?
- How many systems need to interact?
- What's the complexity of each system?
-
Technical Requirements
- Physics/movement systems needed?
- AI/pathfinding complexity?
- Networking/multiplayer?
- Procedural generation?
- Save/load systems?
- UI complexity?
-
Content Requirements
- Art assets needed (count and complexity)
- Audio requirements
- Level/map design scope
- Narrative/dialogue volume
- Animation complexity
-
Scope Indicators
- Number of interconnected systems
- Content volume (levels, enemies, items)
- Polish expectations
- Platform requirements
Phase 2: Feasibility Assessment
Evaluate each aspect:
Technical Feasibility
- 🟢 Low Risk: Built-in engine features, proven patterns
- 🟡 Medium Risk: Custom systems, moderate complexity
- 🔴 High Risk: Novel tech, complex integration, multiplayer
Scope Feasibility
- Timeline vs Features: Can stated features fit timeline?
- Team vs Workload: Enough people for required disciplines?
- Experience vs Complexity: Does team have needed expertise?
Common Risk Patterns
🚨 Red Flags:
- "Open world" without large team/timeline
- Multiplayer for first-time developers
- "Procedural everything" without PCG experience
- 3D + physics + AI + multiplayer simultaneously
- "Like GTA but..." scope creep
- Vague core loop ("explore and discover")
⚠️ Yellow Flags:
- Many systems with unclear integration
- Ambitious AI without prototyping
- Complex UI/UX without designer
- Cross-platform without testing resources
- Content-heavy with small team
✅ Green Flags:
- Clear, focused core loop
- Proven mechanics in new combination
- Incremental feature set (MVP → polish)
- Technical scope matches team skills
- Realistic content volume
Phase 3: Similar Games Analysis
Find and analyze comparable games:
-
Identify Similar Games (3-5 examples)
- Same genre/mechanics
- Similar scope
- Both indie and AAA examples
- Successful and failed projects
-
Extract Lessons
- Development timeline
- Team size
- What worked well
- What they cut/simplified
- Common player feedback
-
Scope Comparison
- How does user's concept compare?
- What did similar games ship with?
- What features came later?
Phase 4: Generate Validation Report
Create comprehensive analysis covering:
-
Executive Summary
- Overall feasibility rating
- Key risks
- Recommended path forward
-
Technical Analysis
- System-by-system breakdown
- Complexity ratings
- Required expertise
- Tech stack recommendations
-
Scope Analysis
- Feature count vs timeline
- MVP vs full vision
- Suggested cuts/phases
- Realistic estimates
-
Similar Games Comparison
- Comparable projects
- Development stats
- Key learnings
- What to emulate/avoid
-
Risk Matrix
- High/medium/low risk items
- Mitigation strategies
- Critical path features
-
Recommendations
- Proceed as-is / adjust scope / reconsider
- Specific cuts or additions
- Phasing strategy
- Prototype priorities
Output Format
# Game Concept Validation Report
**Concept:** [Concept Name/Summary]
**Submitted by:** [User]
**Date:** [Date]
**Validation Status:** 🟢 Feasible | 🟡 Feasible with Adjustments | 🔴 High Risk
---
## Executive Summary
**Overall Assessment:** [2-3 sentence verdict]
**Feasibility Rating:** [X/10]
**Key Strengths:**
- ✅ [Strength 1]
- ✅ [Strength 2]
- ✅ [Strength 3]
**Key Risks:**
- 🚨 [Critical risk 1]
- ⚠️ [Medium risk 1]
- ⚠️ [Medium risk 2]
**Recommended Path:**
[Clear recommendation: proceed, adjust scope, or reconsider with specific next steps]
---
## Concept Breakdown
### Stated Vision
[Restate user's concept clearly and objectively]
### Core Gameplay Loop
- [Player action]
- [System response]
- [Player decision]
- [Outcome/reward]
→ Repeat
### Primary Mechanics
- **[Mechanic 1]**: [Description + complexity rating]
- **[Mechanic 2]**: [Description + complexity rating]
- **[Mechanic 3]**: [Description + complexity rating]
### Development Context
- **Timeline:** [X weeks/months]
- **Team:** [Size and composition]
- **Engine:** [Engine name]
- **Platform:** [Target platform]
- **Experience:** [Team experience level]
---
## Technical Feasibility Analysis
### System-by-System Breakdown
#### [System 1 - e.g., Movement System]
**Complexity:** 🟢 Low | 🟡 Medium | 🔴 High
**Description:** [What it does]
**Requirements:**
- [Technical requirement 1]
- [Technical requirement 2]
**Estimated Effort:** [X days/weeks]
**Risk Level:** [Low/Medium/High]
**Mitigation:** [How to reduce risk]
#### [System 2 - e.g., Combat System]
[Same structure]
#### [System 3 - e.g., Progression System]
[Same structure]
### Technical Risk Summary
| System | Complexity | Risk | Effort | Notes |
|--------|------------|------|--------|-------|
| [System] | 🟢🟡🔴 | Low/Med/High | X days | [Key challenge] |
### Critical Technical Challenges
1. **[Challenge 1]**: [Description + suggested approach]
2. **[Challenge 2]**: [Description + suggested approach]
### Required Expertise
- ✅ **Have:** [Skills team already has]
- ⚠️ **Need:** [Skills to acquire or hire]
- 🔴 **Critical Gap:** [Missing skills that block progress]
---
## Scope Feasibility Analysis
### Timeline vs Features
**Given Timeline:** [X weeks/months]
**Feature Count:** [Y features]
**Realistic Estimate:** [Z weeks/months]
**Scope Verdict:**
- 🟢 **Achievable:** Features fit timeline comfortably
- 🟡 **Tight:** Achievable if everything goes well
- 🔴 **Overscoped:** Need to cut features or extend timeline
### MVP Definition
**Minimum Viable Product (Core Experience):**
1. [Essential feature 1]
2. [Essential feature 2]
3. [Essential feature 3]
4. [Essential feature 4]
**Estimated MVP Timeline:** [X weeks]
**Post-MVP Polish & Content:**
- [Feature to add after MVP]
- [Content expansion]
- [Quality improvements]
**Estimated Full Scope Timeline:** [Y weeks]
### Recommended Cuts (If Overscoped)
- ❌ **Cut:** [Feature] - [Why not essential to core loop]
- ⬇️ **Simplify:** [Feature] - [How to reduce scope]
- 🔄 **Defer:** [Feature] - [Add in post-launch update]
### Content Volume Assessment
| Content Type | Planned | Realistic | Effort | Notes |
|--------------|---------|-----------|--------|-------|
| Levels/Maps | [X] | [Y] | [Z days] | [Comment] |
| Enemies | [X] | [Y] | [Z days] | [Comment] |
| Weapons/Items | [X] | [Y] | [Z days] | [Comment] |
| Art Assets | [X] | [Y] | [Z days] | [Comment] |
---
## Similar Games Comparison
### Game 1: [Title]
**Release:** [Year]
**Team:** [Size]
**Dev Time:** [Months]
**Platform:** [Platform]
**Similarities:**
- [How it's similar to user's concept]
**Key Stats:**
- Development time: [X months]
- Team size: [Y people]
- Budget: [If known]
- Content volume: [Levels, mechanics, etc.]
**What They Did Well:**
- ✅ [Lesson 1]
- ✅ [Lesson 2]
**What They Cut/Simplified:**
- [Feature they initially planned but cut]
- [System they simplified]
**Player Feedback:**
- [What players loved]
- [What players wanted more of]
**Lessons for Your Concept:**
[How this game's experience applies to user's idea]
---
### Game 2: [Title]
[Same structure]
---
### Game 3: [Title]
[Same structure]
---
### Comparative Analysis
**Your Concept vs Similar Games:**
| Aspect | Your Concept | [Game 1] | [Game 2] | [Game 3] |
|--------|--------------|----------|----------|----------|
| Scope | [Rating] | [Rating] | [Rating] | [Rating] |
| Team Size | [X] | [Y] | [Z] | [A] |
| Dev Time | [X mo] | [Y mo] | [Z mo] | [A mo] |
| Complexity | 🟢🟡🔴 | 🟢🟡🔴 | 🟢🟡🔴 | 🟢🟡🔴 |
**Key Insight:**
[What this comparison reveals about feasibility]
---
## Risk Matrix
### 🔴 High Risk Items (Must Address)
| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation Strategy |
|------|--------|-------------|---------------------|
| [Risk 1] | High | High | [How to mitigate] |
| [Risk 2] | High | Medium | [How to mitigate] |
### 🟡 Medium Risk Items (Monitor Closely)
| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation Strategy |
|------|--------|-------------|---------------------|
| [Risk 1] | Medium | High | [How to mitigate] |
| [Risk 2] | High | Low | [How to mitigate] |
### 🟢 Low Risk Items (Manageable)
| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation Strategy |
|------|--------|-------------|---------------------|
| [Risk 1] | Low | Medium | [How to mitigate] |
### Critical Path Analysis
**Blocking Risks** (must solve to proceed):
1. [Risk that blocks all progress]
2. [Foundational risk]
**Parallelizable Risks** (can work on simultaneously):
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]
**Deferrable Risks** (can address later):
- [Risk that affects polish, not core]
---
## Detailed Recommendations
### Verdict: [Proceed / Adjust Scope / Reconsider]
#### If Proceeding As-Is (🟢 Feasible)
**Why it works:**
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
**To maximize success:**
1. [Recommendation 1]
2. [Recommendation 2]
3. [Recommendation 3]
**Prototype priorities:**
1. [What to build first to validate concept]
2. [Second priority]
---
#### If Adjusting Scope (🟡 Feasible with Changes)
**Required changes:**
1. **[Change 1]**: [Why necessary]
2. **[Change 2]**: [Why necessary]
**Suggested MVP:**
[Redefined minimum viable product with cuts]
**Phased Roadmap:**
- **Phase 1 (MVP):** [Features - X weeks]
- **Phase 2 (Polish):** [Features - Y weeks]
- **Phase 3 (Content):** [Features - Z weeks]
**With these changes:**
- Timeline: [Original X weeks → Adjusted Y weeks]
- Scope: [Original features → MVP features]
- Risk: [Original risk level → New risk level]
---
#### If Reconsidering (🔴 High Risk)
**Why it's risky:**
- [Critical issue 1]
- [Critical issue 2]
**Alternative approaches:**
**Option A: Pivot to Smaller Scope**
[Suggest a narrower version of the concept that's achievable]
**Option B: Prototype First**
[Suggest building a small prototype to validate before committing]
**Option C: Build Prerequisite Skills**
[Suggest smaller projects to build up to this one]
**Questions to ask yourself:**
- Can you live with a much smaller version?
- Do you have 2-3x the stated timeline?
- Can you bring in experienced help?
- Is this the right first project?
---
## Next Steps
### Immediate Actions (This Week)
1. [Actionable step 1]
2. [Actionable step 2]
3. [Actionable step 3]
### Short-Term (Next 2-4 Weeks)
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
### Long-Term (Beyond Month 1)
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
### Decision Points
**By [Date]:** [Decision to make - e.g., "Decide if prototype validates core loop"]
**By [Date]:** [Next decision - e.g., "Commit to full production or pivot"]
---
## Appendix: Estimation Formulas
**Used in this report:**
### Feature Complexity Scoring
- **Simple (1x):** Built-in engine features, minimal custom code
- **Moderate (2-3x):** Custom systems, moderate integration
- **Complex (5-10x):** Novel mechanics, deep integration, multiplayer
### Content Volume Estimates
- **Art asset:** [X hours per asset]
- **Level/map:** [Y hours per level]
- **Enemy/character:** [Z hours including AI, art, balance]
### Team Velocity Assumptions
- **Solo developer:** [X hours/week productive time]
- **Small team:** [Y hours/week per person]
- **Experience multiplier:** [Beginner 0.5x, Intermediate 1x, Expert 1.5x]
---
## Follow-Up Services
After reading this report, you can:
- **Refine Concept:** Provide adjusted concept for re-validation
- **Create Prototype Plan:** Use `/roadmap-planner` for phased roadmap
- **Generate GDD:** Use `/gdd-generator` to formalize design
- **Explore Alternatives:** Use `/game-ideator` for alternative ideas
- **Deep-Dive Analysis:** Request system-specific technical analysis
---
**Report generated by Claude Code - Concept Validator Skill**
**For questions or clarifications, ask for elaboration on any section**
Validation Principles
Be Honest, Not Discouraging
- ✅ Point out risks clearly
- ✅ Suggest concrete solutions
- ✅ Acknowledge what's good
- ❌ Don't crush dreams without alternatives
- ❌ Don't rubber-stamp bad ideas
Be Specific, Not Vague
- ✅ "Combat system needs state machine, collision detection, hit feedback - estimate 2 weeks"
- ❌ "Combat will be hard"
Be Realistic, Not Pessimistic
- ✅ Use industry data and similar games
- ✅ Account for learning curves
- ✅ Include buffer for unknowns
- ❌ Don't assume everything goes perfectly
- ❌ Don't assume worst-case for everything
Be Constructive, Not Critical
- ✅ "Cut feature X, focus on Y" with reasoning
- ✅ "Simplify Z to reduce scope without losing core"
- ❌ "This is too ambitious" without suggestions
Research Strategies
Finding Similar Games
Search patterns:
- "[Genre] + [key mechanic] + indie game"
- "[Core loop description] + game"
- "Games like [inspiration] but smaller scope"
Sources:
- Itch.io (indie games with dev blogs)
- Game jams (Ludum Dare, GMTK)
- Postmortems (Gamasutra, dev blogs)
- "Making of" videos (GDC, YouTube)
Extracting Development Data
Look for:
- Dev time (search "development time", "took X months")
- Team size (credits, about pages)
- Tech stack (Unity/Unreal/Godot tags)
- Scope changes (postmortems mention cuts)
- Player counts (Steam stats)
Red flags in research:
- No postmortem data available → estimate conservatively
- Only AAA examples → scale down significantly
- Very old games → tech has changed
Complexity Estimation Guide
System Complexity Ratings
🟢 Low Complexity (1-3 days for experienced dev)
- Basic movement (WASD/arrow keys)
- Simple collision detection
- Basic UI (menus, buttons)
- Sprite animation
- Sound effect playback
🟡 Medium Complexity (1-2 weeks for experienced dev)
- State machines (player states, enemy AI)
- Pathfinding (A* for navigation)
- Inventory systems
- Save/load functionality
- Particle effects and juice
- Basic procedural generation (e.g., random level layouts)
🔴 High Complexity (3+ weeks for experienced dev)
- Multiplayer/networking
- Complex procedural generation (e.g., terrain, dungeons)
- Advanced AI (behavior trees, machine learning)
- Physics-based puzzles
- Dialogue systems with branching
- 3D with custom shaders
Content Production Rates
Pixel Art (solo artist):
- Simple sprite: 1-2 hours
- Character (4 directions, 3 animations): 8-16 hours
- Tileset: 8-16 hours
- UI set: 4-8 hours
3D Assets (solo artist):
- Simple prop: 2-4 hours
- Character: 20-40 hours
- Environment: 40-80 hours
Level Design:
- Tutorial level: 4-8 hours
- Standard level: 8-16 hours (including layout, testing, balance)
Audio:
- Sound effect: 30 mins - 2 hours
- Music track: 4-8 hours
Multiplier Factors
Experience level:
- Beginner: 2-3x estimates
- Intermediate: 1x estimates
- Expert: 0.7x estimates
Engine familiarity:
- New engine: 1.5x estimates
- Familiar engine: 1x estimates
Team coordination:
- Solo: 1x estimates
- 2-3 people: 1.2x estimates (communication overhead)
- 4+ people: 1.5x estimates (coordination overhead)
Common Concept Patterns
Pattern: "Like X but Y"
Example: "Like Vampire Survivors but with crafting"
Validation approach:
- Research X (Vampire Survivors)
- What made it successful?
- How long to develop?
- What's the minimum feature set?
- Evaluate Y (crafting addition)
- How complex is crafting system?
- Does it complement or compete with core loop?
- What's the integration cost?
- Assess combined scope
- Is it additive (2x effort) or synergistic?
Common pitfall: Underestimating integration complexity
Pattern: "Multiple Genres Combined"
Example: "Puzzle-platformer with tower defense elements"
Validation approach:
- Identify each genre's core loop
- Map where loops intersect
- Assess if loops compete or complement
- Estimate development for each separately, then add 50% for integration
Common pitfall: Each genre needs full implementation, can't cut corners
Pattern: "Procedural Everything"
Example: "Roguelike with procedural levels, enemies, weapons, and story"
Validation approach:
- Prioritize what MUST be procedural
- What can be handcrafted?
- Prototype generator early (high risk)
- Assess content creation vs generator development time
Common pitfall: Generator takes longer than making content manually
Pattern: "Massive Content Scope"
Example: "RPG with 50 quests, 20 enemy types, 100 items"
Validation approach:
- Calculate production time per asset
- Multiply by quantity
- Compare to timeline
- Suggest MVP content volume (usually 20-30% of vision)
Common pitfall: Underestimating iteration time (balance, bugs, polish)
Example Validation: "Mech Survivors"
User Request: "Validate this concept: A Vampire Survivors-like but with mechs that you customize between runs. 3D graphics, Godot, solo dev, 3 months."
Validation Output:
Game Concept Validation Report
Concept: Mech Survivors (Vampire Survivors-like with mech customization)
Submitted by: User
Date: 2025-12-21
Validation Status: 🟡 Feasible with Adjustments
Executive Summary
Overall Assessment: Achievable concept with strong core but needs scope refinement. 3D + customization significantly increases complexity compared to Vampire Survivors' 2D simplicity. Recommend starting with 2D or simplifying customization.
Feasibility Rating: 6/10 (as stated) → 8/10 (with adjustments)
Key Strengths:
- ✅ Proven core loop (Vampire Survivors formula)
- ✅ Clear differentiation (mechs + customization)
- ✅ Godot is excellent for this genre
Key Risks:
- 🚨 3D art + animation for solo dev in 3 months
- ⚠️ Customization system complexity
- ⚠️ Balance complexity with customizable builds
Recommended Path:
Start with 2D top-down sprites (faster art pipeline) and simplified customization (3-4 weapon slots, 10-15 parts total). Build 3D version post-launch if successful.
[Rest of detailed report would follow the template above]
Important Notes
- Tone: Supportive but honest - help users succeed, don't just say "yes"
- Data-driven: Use real examples, not gut feelings
- Actionable: Every critique should include solution
- Scoped: Focus on feasibility, not full design review
- Realistic: Account for Murphy's Law (things take longer than expected)
Example Invocations
User: "Validate this game concept: [description]"
User: "Can I build a [game type] in [timeframe]?"
User: "Is this idea feasible: [concept]"
User: "Reality check on this game idea: [description]"
User: "What are the risks of making [game concept]?"
Workflow Summary
- Gather concept details (ask for missing context if needed)
- Analyze technical requirements (systems, content, complexity)
- Research similar games (3-5 examples with dev data)
- Assess feasibility (technical, scope, timeline)
- Identify risks (high/medium/low with mitigations)
- Generate recommendations (proceed/adjust/reconsider with specifics)
- Create validation report (following output format template)
- Offer follow-up (prototype planning, GDD, alternatives)
This skill empowers users to make informed decisions about their game concepts, setting them up for realistic success.
