ags-map-systems

name	ags-map-systems
description	Decompose a game concept into individual systems, map dependencies, prioritize design order, and create the systems index.
argument-hint	[next | system-name]
user-invocable	true
allowed-tools	Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite, Task

Language: Talk to user in language from .ags/project/user-interaction.md. Fall back to English if file missing. Files on disk always English per .ags/rules/user-interaction.md.

When this skill is invoked:

Parse Arguments

Two modes:

• No argument: /ags-map-systems — Run the full decomposition workflow (Phases 1-5) to create or update the systems index.
• next: /ags-map-systems next — Pick the highest-priority undesigned system from the index and hand off to /ags-design-system (Phase 6).

---

Phase 1: Read Concept (Required Context)

Read the game concept and any existing design work. This provides the raw material for systems decomposition.

Required:

• Read design/gdd/game-concept.md — fail with a clear message if missing:

  "No game concept found at design/gdd/game-concept.md. Run /ags-brainstorm first to create one, then come back to decompose it into systems."

Optional (read if they exist):

• Read design/gdd/game-pillars.md — pillars constrain priority and scope
• Read design/gdd/systems-index.md — if exists, resume from where it left off (update, don't recreate from scratch)
• Glob design/gdd/*.md — check which system GDDs already exist

If the systems index already exists:

• Read it and present current status to the user
• Use AskUserQuestion to ask: "The systems index already exists with [N] systems ([M] designed, [K] not started). What would you like to do?"
  • Options: "Update the index with new systems", "Design the next undesigned system", "Review and revise priorities"

---

Phase 2: Systems Enumeration (Collaborative)

Extract and identify all systems the game needs. This is the creative core of the skill — it requires human judgment because concept docs rarely enumerate every system explicitly.

Step 2a: Extract Explicit Systems

Scan the game concept for directly mentioned systems and mechanics:

• Core Mechanics section (most explicit)
• Core Loop section (implies what systems drive each loop tier)
• Technical Considerations section (networking, procedural generation, etc.)
• MVP Definition section (required features = required systems)

Step 2b: Identify Implicit Systems

For each explicit system, identify the hidden systems it implies. Games always need more systems than the concept doc mentions. Use this inference pattern:

• "Inventory" implies: item database, equipment slots, weight/capacity rules, inventory UI, item serialization for save/load
• "Combat" implies: damage calculation, health system, hit detection, status effects, enemy AI, combat UI (health bars, damage numbers), death/respawn
• "Open world" implies: streaming/chunking, LOD system, fast travel, map/minimap, point of interest tracking, world state persistence
• "Multiplayer" implies: networking layer, lobby/matchmaking, state synchronization, anti-cheat, network UI (ping, player list)
• "Crafting" implies: recipe database, ingredient gathering, crafting UI, success/failure mechanics, recipe discovery/learning
• "Dialogue" implies: dialogue tree system, dialogue UI, choice tracking, NPC state management, localization hooks
• "Progression" implies: XP system, level-up mechanics, skill tree, unlock tracking, progression UI, progression save data

Explain in conversation text why each implicit system is needed (with examples).

Step 2c: User Review

Present the enumeration organized by category. For each system, show:

• Name
• Category
• Brief description (1 sentence)
• Whether it was explicit (from concept) or implicit (inferred)

Then use AskUserQuestion to capture feedback:

• "Are there systems missing from this list?"
• "Should any of these be combined or split?"
• "Are there systems listed that this game does NOT need?"

Iterate until the user approves the enumeration.

---

Phase 3: Dependency Mapping (Collaborative)

For each system, determine what it depends on. A system "depends on" another if it cannot function without that other system existing first.

Step 3a: Map Dependencies

For each system, list its dependencies. Use these dependency heuristics:

• Input/output dependencies: System A produces data System B needs
• Structural dependencies: System A provides the framework System B plugs into
• UI dependencies: Every gameplay system has a corresponding UI system that depends on it (but UI is designed after the gameplay system)

Step 3b: Sort by Dependency Order

Arrange systems into layers:

1. Foundation: Systems with zero dependencies (designed and built first)
2. Core: Systems depending only on Foundation systems
3. Feature: Systems depending on Core systems
4. Presentation: UI and feedback systems that wrap gameplay systems
5. Polish: Meta-systems, tutorials, analytics, accessibility

Step 3c: Detect Circular Dependencies

Check for cycles in the dependency graph. If found:

• Highlight them to the user
• Propose resolutions (interface abstraction, simultaneous design, breaking the cycle by defining a contract between the two systems)

Step 3d: Present to User

Show the dependency map as a layered list. Highlight:

• Any circular dependencies
• Any "bottleneck" systems (many others depend on them — these are high-risk)
• Any systems with no dependents (leaf nodes — lower risk, can be designed late)

Use AskUserQuestion to ask: "Does this dependency ordering look right? Any dependencies I'm missing or that should be removed?"

After dependency mapping is approved, spawn technical-director via Task using gate TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY (.ags/rules/director-gates.md) before proceeding to priority assignment.

Pass: the dependency map summary, layer assignments, bottleneck systems list, any circular dependency resolutions.

Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system boundaries with the user before moving to priority assignment. If CONCERNS, note them inline in the systems index and continue.

---

Phase 4: Priority Assignment (Collaborative)

Assign each system to a priority tier based on what milestone it's needed for.

Step 4a: Auto-Assign Based on Concept

Use these heuristics for initial assignment:

• MVP: Systems mentioned in the concept's "Required for MVP" section, plus their Foundation-layer dependencies
• Vertical Slice: Systems needed for a complete experience in one area
• Alpha: All remaining gameplay systems
• Full Vision: Polish, meta, and nice-to-have systems

Step 4b: User Review

Present the priority assignments in a table. For each tier, explain why systems were placed there.

Use AskUserQuestion to ask: "Do these priority assignments match your vision? Which systems should be higher or lower priority?"

Explain reasoning in conversation: "I placed [system] in MVP because the core loop requires it — without [system], the 30-second loop can't function."

"Why" column guidance: When explaining why each system was placed in a priority tier, mix technical necessity with player-experience reasoning. Do not use purely technical justifications like "Combat needs damage math" — connect to player experience where relevant. Examples of good "Why" entries:

• "Required for the core loop — without it, placement decisions have no consequence (Pillar 2: Placement is the Puzzle)"
• "Ballista's punch-through identity is established here — this stat definition is what makes it feel different from Archer"
• "Foundation for all economy decisions — players must understand upgrade costs to make meaningful placement choices"

Pure technical necessity ("X depends on Y") is insufficient alone when the system directly shapes player experience.

After priorities are approved, spawn producer via Task using gate PR-SCOPE (.ags/rules/director-gates.md) before writing the index.

Pass: total system count per milestone tier, estimated implementation volume per tier (system count × average complexity), team size, stated project timeline.

Present the assessment. If UNREALISTIC, offer to revise priority tier assignments before writing the index. If CONCERNS, note them and continue.

Step 4c: Determine Design Order

Combine dependency sort + priority tier to produce the final design order:

1. MVP Foundation systems first
2. MVP Core systems second
3. MVP Feature systems third
4. Vertical Slice Foundation/Core systems
5. ...and so on

This is the order the team should write GDDs in.

---

Combined Review Loop (parallel external Codex)

Per .ags/rules/review-workflow.md. The internal review section above runs in parallel with external Codex inside one loop. Each iteration:

1. Resolve severity floor: iter 1-2 → keep all severities; iter 3-4 → critical/high; iter 5+ → critical only.
2. Persist current draft to .ags/project/reviews/.tmp/[type]-[slug]-iter[N]-draft.md.
3. Spawn in one message, in parallel (multiple Task calls + one Bash invocation):
   • All internal reviewer Tasks listed above.
   • /ags-external-review [type] [draft-path] --embedded-parallel --iteration [N] --min-severity [floor] — Codex unavailable returns skipped: codex-unavailable; aggregator logs skip in decisions-log and continues with internal pool only.
4. Aggregator (producer by default; skill-designated lead where the skill specifies one) merges findings from internal + external, drops nitpicks + below-floor.
5. Loop exit: filtered set empty → proceed to write approval. Non-empty → surface aggregated kept findings, user revises draft, N++, repeat.

No iteration cap. No user-confirm gate before external — it runs every iteration automatically. Record final iteration count for the decisions-log entry written at skill completion.

---

Phase 6: Design Individual Systems (Handoff to /ags-design-system)

This phase is entered when:

• The user says "yes" to designing systems after creating the index
• The user invokes /ags-map-systems [system-name]
• The user invokes /ags-map-systems next

Step 6a: Select the System

• If a system name was provided, find it in the systems index
• If next was used, pick the highest-priority undesigned system (by design order)
• If the user just finished the index, ask: "Would you like to start designing individual systems now? The first system in the design order is [name]. Or would you prefer to stop here and come back later?"

Use AskUserQuestion for: "Start designing [system-name] now, pick a different system, or stop here?"

Step 6b: Hand Off to /ags-design-system

Once a system is selected, invoke the /ags-design-system [system-name] skill.

The /ags-design-system skill handles the full GDD authoring process:

• Gathers context from game concept, systems index, and dependency GDDs
• Creates a file skeleton immediately
• Walks through all 8 required sections one at a time (collaborative, incremental)
• Cross-references existing docs to prevent contradictions
• Routes to specialist agents for domain expertise
• Writes each section to file as soon as it's approved
• Runs /ags-design-review when complete
• Updates the systems index

Do not duplicate the /ags-design-system workflow here. This skill owns the systems index; /ags-design-system owns individual system GDDs.

Step 6c: Loop or Stop

After /ags-design-system completes, use AskUserQuestion:

• "Continue to the next system ([next system name])?"
• "Pick a different system?"
• "Stop here for this session?"

If continuing, return to Step 6a.

---

Phase 7: Suggest Next Steps

After the systems index is created (or after designing some systems), present next actions using AskUserQuestion:

• "Systems index is written. What would you like to do next?"
  • [A] Start designing GDDs — run /ags-design-system [first-system-in-order]
  • [B] Ask a director to review the index first — ask creative-director or technical-director to validate the system set before committing to 10+ GDD sessions
  • [C] Stop here for this session

The director review option ([B]) is worth highlighting: having a Creative Director or Technical Director review the completed systems index before starting GDD authoring catches scope issues, missing systems, and boundary problems before they're locked in across many documents. It is optional but recommended for new projects.

After any individual GDD is completed:

• "Run /ags-design-review design/gdd/[system].md in a fresh session to validate quality"
• "Run /ags-gate-check systems-design when all MVP GDDs are complete"

---

Collaborative Protocol

Every phase: Question → Options → Decision → Draft → Approval

1. AskUserQuestion at every decision point:
   • Phase 2: "Missing systems? Combine or split?"
   • Phase 3: "Dependency ordering correct?"
   • Phase 4: "Priority assignments match your vision?"
   • Phase 5: "May I write the systems index?"
   • Phase 6: "Start designing, pick different, or stop?" → hand off to /ags-design-system
2. "May I write to [filepath]?" before every file write
3. Incremental writing — update systems index after each system designed
4. Handoff — GDD authoring owned by /ags-design-system; this skill owns the index
5. Session state updates — write .ags/project/state.md after each milestone

NEVER auto-generate full systems list. NEVER start designing without confirmation. ALWAYS show enumeration, dependencies, priorities for validation.

Context Window Awareness

Context ≥70% → append:

Context approaching limit (≥70%). Systems index saved to design/gdd/systems-index.md. Open fresh session, run /ags-map-systems next to continue.

---

Recommended Next Steps

• Run /ags-design-system [first-system-in-order] to author the first GDD (use design order from the index)
• Run /ags-map-systems next to always pick the highest-priority undesigned system automatically
• Run /ags-design-review design/gdd/[system].md in a fresh session after each GDD is authored
• Run /ags-gate-check pre-production when all MVP GDDs are authored and reviewed