メニュー
Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Creates an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) documenting a significant technical decision, its context, alternatives considered, and consequences. Every major technical choice should have an ADR.
Audits game assets for compliance with naming conventions, file size budgets, format standards, and pipeline requirements. Identifies orphaned assets, missing references, and standard violations.
Analyzes game balance data files, formulas, and configuration to identify outliers, broken progressions, degenerate strategies, and economy imbalances. Use after modifying any balance-related data or design.
Guided game concept ideation — from zero idea to a structured game concept document. Uses professional studio ideation techniques, player psychology frameworks, and structured creative exploration.
Creates a structured bug report from a description, or analyzes code to identify potential bugs. Ensures every bug report has full reproduction steps, severity assessment, and context.
Auto-generates a changelog from git commits, sprint data, and design documents. Produces both internal and player-facing versions.
| name | playtest-report |
| description | Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis. |
This is the Codex-adapted version of the original workflow. Use only .codex/ runtime assets when following it.
Arguments: [new|analyze path-to-notes]
When invoked with new, generate this template:
# 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]
- [Observation 2]
### Pain points
- [Issue 1 -- Severity: High/Medium/Low]
- [Issue 2 -- 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]
When invoked with analyze, read the raw notes, cross-reference with existing
design documents, and fill in the template above with structured findings.
Flag any playtest observations that conflict with design intent.