メニュー
Use when expanding Hearts of Iron IV mod feature ideas into detailed specifications before implementation.
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。
Use only when the selected HOI4 portrait provider is the Comfy Cloud MCP route.
Use only when the selected HOI4 portrait provider is a configured loopback ComfyUI installation.
Use only when the selected HOI4 portrait provider is an existing RunPod ComfyUI workspace.
Use when creating, sourcing, processing, converting, organizing, wiring, or documenting visual assets for a Hearts of Iron IV mod.
Use for the provider-neutral HOI4 portrait source, prompt, archive, validation, and runtime handoff contract.
Use when coordinating custom Codex subagents for HOI4 mod implementation, asset production, text and audio research, audits, active small patches, planning handoffs, or documentation work.
| name | hoi4-feature-planning |
| description | Use when expanding Hearts of Iron IV mod feature ideas into detailed specifications before implementation. |
Use this skill to design or expand features for a Hearts of Iron IV mod.
This skill creates feature specifications. It does not implement code. Implementation belongs to the owning implementation skill for the surface being designed, such as hoi4-events for event content, hoi4-focus-trees for focus trees, hoi4-decisions-missions for decisions and missions, and repository-specific implementation rules for other systems. Visual asset generation and processing belongs to hoi4-feature-assets. Animated sprite planning, frame-sheet requirements, animated portrait packages, and animation handoff details belong to hoi4-frame-animation when motion is needed. Quote, remark, and audio research belongs to hoi4-text-audio-research.
Before writing the feature specification, use the following as the design baseline:
AGENTS.mdhoi4-events when the feature includes ordinary HOI4 events, news events, report events, event chains, or event-triggered contenthoi4-feature-assets when the feature needs visual assetshoi4-frame-animation when the feature has animated sprites, animated UI, animated route emblems, animated portraits, warning pulses, hover loops, glow loops, float loops, particle loops, or frame-by-frame presentation needshoi4-text-audio-research when the feature needs sourced quotes, cultural remarks, or audio researchhoi4-improvement-loop before a near-completion review, and whenever the design may still be shallow, disconnected, bloated, or missing deeper playable consequenceshoi4-subagents before spawning hoi4_improvement_loop_planner or any other project subagenthoi4-focus-trees or the current focus-tree skill when the feature needs focus treeshoi4-decisions-missions when the feature needs decisions, missions, timed objectives, influence actions, or decision-driven mechanicsUse those sources to understand how the target repository works, then expand creatively from there.
Inspecting the repo is mandatory, but the specification should not read like a technical audit. Use repo findings to prevent mistakes and match patterns. Keep proof of inspection in the final response checklist, not in admin sections inside the spec.
The user will provide either:
Treat the user idea as the starting point. Do not assume it is final.
When the idea is rough, expand it into a deeper design.
When the idea is already detailed, preserve the core direction and improve structure, clarity, missing connections, and implementation readiness.
The goal is to create a feature that feels like a layered mod system, not a basic popup.
The feature should have atmosphere, player choice, consequences, escalation, lore, replay value, and enough visual support to feel finished.
The design should be ambitious. Do not get lazy, conservative, or minimal unless the feature is genuinely small. Depth matters more than speed. Take the time needed to research, compare patterns, think through consequences, and design the feature as if the coding agent will implement exactly what is written.
The finished spec should make the coding agent feel that the feature has already been designed in full.
The spec should focus on the feature idea, not on obvious implementation plumbing.
Do not put sections such as:
ScopeSource baselineRepository contextExternal tracking rowExisting implementation auditGeneric trigger safeguardsThe spec should be player-facing design and implementation-relevant feature design.
Avoid obvious lines such as:
Those are baseline system responsibilities. Include technical notes only when they prevent a likely mistake, explain non-obvious behavior, or define a unique rule for this feature. Otherwise, its just noise.
Do not create negative capability notes for absent feature surfaces. If a feature does not have a campaign-ending branch, do not mention campaign-ending branches. If another surface is absent, omit that surface instead of documenting its absence. Do not write sections, bullets, feature-detail notes, parent-provided external record summaries, implementation prompts, or player-facing text that say negative absence wording such as no special branch, no manual variant, or similar. Omit the surface completely unless it actually exists or the user explicitly asks for an explanation of why it is absent.
For every player-facing text surface, the planning spec should define the writing direction and leave finished wording to implementation. This includes feature titles and descriptions, report text, news text, focus text, decision text, option text, achievement text, text or audio research setup, GUI labels, route flavour, feature-detail text, and parent-provided external record summaries.
Give the coding agent clear direction for:
Do not provide pasteable localisation. Do not include sample line, possible line, placeholder text, temporary title, or exact draft wording that could be copied into localisation. When a structural label is needed for a file, row, route, branch, asset, or prompt, mark it as a working label, not final localisation.
Text direction should avoid bland map-summary framing and generic communications clichés. Do not make the emotional center of a feature a changed map, a line of advance, a staff-table scene, a failed broadcast, or another stock image of crisis administration.
When planning player-facing warning, threat, suspicious-report, and escalation text, do not instruct the coding agent to say that something is a warning, that something is not a warning, that a threat is coming, or that a danger signal has appeared. The text should show the pattern through partial information: fearful witnesses, rumours, anomalies, mysterious powers seen, etc
A report can make the player uneasy without naming the unease. Use mystery, information gaps, fear, rumours, etc. The player should infer that something may be wrong from the content and consequences, not from a label.
When a concept benefits from mystery, fantasy, surrealism, myth, occult signs, prophecy, impossible resolve, strange energy, or unclear public rumours, state that direction clearly without drafting the final prose.
The planning spec may define what an option should feel like, what stance it represents, and how it should vary by route or actor. It must not write final option text.
Do not let the implementation agent default to bland buttons unless plainness is intentional. Describe the intended option style, such as official denial, sarcastic acceptance, bitter understatement, cultural allusion direction, period propaganda tone, frightened understatement, arrogant boast, administrative absurdity, local proverb direction, or grim irony that condemns the speaker.
For each important option or option family, define:
Humour should fit the stakes. Minor chaotic features can use sharper jokes and visible sarcasm. Major disasters, massacres, atrocities, mass death, and real-world suffering should use severity, official euphemism, cynical propaganda, hypocrisy, or self-damning grim irony. Cheap comedy is forbidden there.
Cultural remarks should be treated as research directions unless already sourced. The spec may say that a line should draw from a period slogan, military idiom, folk saying, religious register, old newspaper style, literary echo, propaganda formula, or local public habit. It must not invent the exact remark.
Do not list example option lines. Do not write sample buttons. Do not write placeholder localisation for options. Coding agents may paste those into the game.
Some features need one cutting reaction direction and one plain practical reaction direction. Some need several route-specific reaction directions. The spec should state the intended option tone and purpose, then leave the final wording to the coding agent.
The specification should be as deep as the feature idea deserves.
For small features, this may mean a compact but complete spec. For major features, large crises, custom UI systems, feature chains, focus trees, custom tags, or features with escalation variants, the spec should become very large and multi-part.
Do not aim for a short answer. Aim for a complete design.
For larger features, it is acceptable and expected for the finished specification to span many files and potentially reach tens of thousands or more than 100,000 lines. A huge feature with multiple countries, full focus trees, rare variants, and international-order routes can justify 100,000+ lines, and even more, across all parts if the content is meaningful. Do not shorten the spec because it becomes long.
Do not add filler to reach a size target. Add depth by thinking through the feature from every useful angle:
Every section should add usable design, player-facing detail, implementation clarity, asset direction, or system connection.
Use research to make the feature richer. Do not rely on the first obvious idea.
When the feature has historical, cultural, scientific, political, regional, military, religious, or ideological inspiration, research enough to produce specific variants, names, factions, symbols, motives, and consequences.
Research should help answer:
If the topic is niche, current, uncertain, or historically specific, verify with reliable sources. Do not invent source claims. If a source-dependent point is uncertain, mark it as uncertain.
Research should not make the spec dry. Use it to create better feature content.
When the feature includes decisions, rare variants, country paths, custom actors, or special outcomes, map them out fully.
Do not write vague lines such as:
Instead, define the content. For each meaningful decision or decision group, map:
For rare variants, map:
For branch trees or outcome webs, show the structure. Use headings, named routes, tables, or lists. The coding agent should not have to invent the branch map.
Focus trees must be planned clearly, but the feature-planning spec should not try to micromanage every final focus node, every coordinate, or every exact connection. The spec writer should define the tree's routes, branch architecture, major choices, mutual exclusions, story logic, mechanics, rewards, and design standards. The implementation agent should then create the final in-game focus tree layout and exact focus connections cleanly.
A good focus-tree spec should answer:
Do not write only vague branch names. A focus-tree plan must still be detailed enough to prevent generic or boring implementation. The spec should describe the internal logic of each path, the rough order of ideas inside it, its major focus groups, its expected route locks, and its major payoff. It should also name important focuses or focus groups where the story requires them.
Do not require a literal list of every focus unless the user specifically asks for a focus-by-focus blueprint. The default planning style should be path-level and branch-level design. It is acceptable to provide non-final focus-role labels or important anchor focus groups.
Every major focus tree still needs an architecture map. The architecture map should show the intended path structure, not every final focus.
The map should include:
Use a readable structure such as a table, bullet tree, route diagram, or lane map. The implementation agent should understand the intended tree shape and design, but does not need exact focus coordinates from the spec unless the user asks for them.
For each major path, define:
For each important anchor focus or focus group, define:
The coding agent may create more or fewer individual focuses than the spec examples as long as the final tree preserves the path design, story logic, route choices, and gameplay depth.
Focus rewards must be varied. Do not design focus trees where most focuses add a new national spirit, add political power, add stability, add war support, or repeat the same modifier pattern.
A new national spirit or idea should be used only when the focus creates a persistent institution, doctrine, crisis condition, political identity, military structure, economic system, or long-term route effect. If the branch already has an idea representing that institution, prefer modifying, upgrading, replacing, temporarily strengthening, or adding a timed modifier to the existing idea instead of creating another separate idea.
Good focus reward types include:
When a specification adds or changes technologies, doctrines, folders, prerequisites, unlocks, grants, or research bonuses, require the implementation handoff to inspect the affected graph with hoi4.tech_inspect, render the relevant folder or branch with hoi4.tech_render, and compare the implemented source with hoi4.tech_compare. The plan must identify intended placement, prerequisites, exclusivity, unlocks, bonuses, and asset needs so the implementation agent has a concrete result to verify.
Every focus path should have a distinct purpose. If two focus groups would grant nearly the same effect, merge them, rewrite one, or make one an upgrade of the other.
Reject focus trees where most focus groups grant new ideas without a clear reason. A tree that uses repeated new ideas as filler has failed even if it has many focuses.
New countries, transformed countries, civil-war splinters, emergency governments, and unstable successor states should not start with a long stack of generic positive ideas. It is usually better for them to start with a small number of deep, readable ideas that define their starting weakness, identity, and strategic problems.
Starting ideas can be negative, mixed, unstable, or conditional. These ideas should represent real problems the country must solve, such as broken administration, improvised command, disputed legitimacy, militia fragmentation, supply confusion, foreign dependence, refugee pressure, factional mistrust, ruined industry, contested railways, disorganized officers, or unclear laws.
Negative starting ideas should not be permanent dead weight unless the story requires that. The spec should map how decisions, missions, focuses, leader choices, foreign aid, victories, reforms, purges, compromises, or crisis outcomes can mitigate, transform, upgrade, or remove them.
Prefer fewer ideas with more depth over many shallow ideas. A good idea can have a lifecycle:
When designing focus trees, do not create a new idea in every focus. If an institution already exists as an idea, prefer changing that existing idea through staged upgrades, replacing it with a route-specific version, adding a temporary modifier, unlocking decisions tied to it, or changing how it interacts with missions and crisis values.
For every important idea, define:
Every major country package should include a starting idea plan and an idea lifecycle table. The table should show which ideas exist at start, which are unlocked later, which are upgraded, which are removed, and which are route-specific.
Example table:
| Idea | Start or unlock | Starting role | Mitigation path | Upgrade path | Failure path | Final forms |
|---|
Reject specs where a country starts with too many unrelated ideas, where every focus creates a separate idea, or where negative ideas cannot be meaningfully addressed through play.
When planning a major focus tree, define more than politics and industry. A large tree needs a distinct expansion, reunification, liberation, settlement, or regional ambition branch. This branch should be separate from the main political tree and separate from the industry tree.
Expansion branches should define real strategic effects, such as claims, cores, war goals, protectorates, guarantees, declarations, leagues, border settlements, ultimatum decisions, or postwar integration choices. Do not reduce expansion to generic bonuses.
Political branches should change politics directly. Define ideology paths, ruling party shifts, party popularity changes, leader changes, advisor unlocks, advisor discounts, laws, councils, juntas, congresses, committees, faction struggles, cosmetic names, and flag changes where they fit. Leader changes imply portrait needs. Real leaders need sourced portraits. Fictional leaders and symbolic councils can use generated portraits through the asset skill.
Fixed-purpose special feature-created countries can have narrower politics when their identity demands it. A death-state, plague-state, machine-state, or pure destruction actor may have one ideological purpose. Even then, the tree should still provide meaningful internal choices inside that purpose, such as doctrine, expansion method, recruitment, economy, hierarchy, or endgame ambition.
Focus trees and decision systems must be planned together. Focuses should unlock or change decisions and missions. Industry focuses can unlock construction decisions. Military focuses can unlock unit, depot, border, or offensive missions. Diplomacy focuses can unlock recognition, aid, volunteer, and influence decisions. Expansion focuses can unlock declarations, league votes, protectorate demands, border incidents, claims, cores, war goals, and settlement decisions.
For each major focus path, describe which decision or mission families it unlocks and how those decisions expand the mechanic.
Political, industry, and expansion are the minimum branch families, not the full design for important countries. Important countries should usually also define military, diplomacy, internal faction, intelligence or security, special mechanic, and late-game branches when their identity supports them.
Branches should not be isolated columns. Political choices should change which expansion, industry, military, diplomacy, and decision paths are available. Industry should support military or expansion. Expansion should create political consequences. Diplomacy should affect foreign aid, war options, faction choices, and sponsor risk.
Every major branch needs a clear payoff. A political branch can end in a new government, leader, ideology, law system, ruling party, or country identity. An industry branch can end in a rebuilt economy, arsenal, resource system, railway authority, construction mechanic, or production network. An expansion branch can end in a league, empire, federation, protectorate network, reunification, liberation order, regional settlement, or external war plan.
A good focus path should unlock new gameplay, not only stats. The plan should describe decisions, missions, units, advisors, leaders, laws, claims, cores, war goals, buildings, features, mechanics, route access, and AI behavior where they fit. Flat modifiers are supporting rewards, not the main design.
Political routes should update the visible country package where relevant: leader, leader portrait, advisor roster, high command, ruling party, party names, ideology drift or swap, cosmetic name, flag, ideas, and AI strategy. Leader changes imply portrait needs.
Expansion branches should create consequences. Claims, cores, and war goals should interact with diplomacy, factions, resistance, foreign guarantees, local leagues, legitimacy, threat, or postwar settlement decisions.
Industry branches should create map or production changes. Define factories, infrastructure, railways, supply hubs, forts, anti-air, airbases, dockyards, resources, production lines, or construction decisions.
Decision categories should evolve with focus progress. Early focuses may unlock basic decisions. Later focuses should add new targets, stronger actions, cheaper costs, new risks, or new mission families. A decision category should feel different after a route develops.
The fixed-purpose exception is narrow. A country is fixed-purpose only when its concept clearly cannot support normal politics, such as a death-state, machine-state, plague-state, or pure destruction actor. It still needs meaningful internal branches around method, hierarchy, economy, recruitment, expansion, and endgame.
A branch does not count as real unless it changes gameplay. In the spec, each major branch should have several focus groups, a mechanical unlock, a route consequence, and an end-state or payoff.
Major routes need route-specific AI plans. Do not let the implementation use generic focus weights for every route. The spec should say which AI types choose each route and when they avoid it.
Major routes need distinct localisation tone. A socialist route, military route, democratic route, nationalist route, religious route, machine route, death-state route, or foreign client route should not read like the same generic branch with different rewards.
Expansion branches should include postwar handling. War goals alone are not enough. Define claims, cores, puppet options, protectorates, occupation decisions, integration missions, border settlement features, resistance risks, diplomacy reactions, faction consequences, or achievement tracking.
Industry branches should be geographically grounded where possible. Define which states or regions receive factories, resources, ports, railways, supply hubs, forts, anti-air, dockyards, airbases, or infrastructure.
Advisor unlocks should match route identity. Political routes unlock ideological and government figures. Industry routes unlock engineers and economic boards. Military routes unlock commanders and high command. Diplomacy routes unlock envoys and foreign liaisons. Extreme-route routes unlock route-specific councils, symbolic leaders, or strange authorities.
Large focus trees should include achievement hooks for difficult route completions, rare branch combinations, expansion outcomes, internal reform, avoiding foreign dependency, league formation, extreme-route survival, or late-game ambitions.
The final implementation prompt should ask for a route coverage table comparing required routes against implemented routes. Missing, renamed, merged, simplified, fallback, or replaced routes must be reported.
A major route should leave visible evidence in the game. The spec should describe what the player actually sees or gains: map changes, decisions, units, advisors, leaders, flags, cosmetic names, faction behavior, focus availability, diplomacy, or visible mechanics. A route that only changes hidden variables or tiny modifiers is not meaningful.
Large focus trees should have early, middle, and late pacing. Early content solves survival and basic identity. Middle content creates route mechanics and real choices. Late content delivers major payoffs, expansion, faction or League outcomes, extreme-route routes, postwar settlement, or international-order ambitions.
Every major route should have a tradeoff. The spec should define what the route risks or sacrifices. Military routes may reduce freedom or legitimacy. Foreign-aid routes may create dependency. Expansion routes may create backlash. Industry routes may consume civilian capacity or weaken short-term defense. Extreme-route routes may gain power while damaging stability, diplomacy, or normal politics.
Do not overuse mutual exclusions. Mutually exclusive paths should represent real identity changes, strategic commitments, or incompatible institutions. Support branches such as industry, army, diplomacy, and logistics should usually coexist unless the route logic says otherwise.
Important routes should define failure states. A failed political reform can empower radicals. Failed expansion can trigger backlash or settlement. Failed industry can create dependency. Failed foreign-aid balancing can create a client state. Failed military centralization can create rogue generals or militias.
Focus and decision localisation should describe the visible baseline effect of the route or action. It should not reveal hidden effects, secret outcomes, hidden variables, or future surprises. The player-facing text should explain the public action and visible direction, not the hidden implementation.
Large features should usually include at least one special mechanic. A special mechanic can be a pressure meter, influence system, balance of power, faction cohesion system, legitimacy system, corruption system, outbreak tracker, coalition command system, resource race, regional authority map, or similar play layer.
A special mechanic should define its important values clearly. Examples include legitimacy, authority, influence, cohesion, obedience, corruption, foreign penetration, military readiness, industrial capacity, public panic, faction unity, sponsor pressure, religious authority, revolutionary zeal, or regional control.
Mechanic values must be dynamic. They should move through focuses, decisions, missions, features, wars, state control, foreign influence, AI actions, and prior outcomes. Do not design a mechanic where values only drift passively or change through a few flat scripted effects.
Every important mechanic value should have a consistent colour identity in localisation. If several values contribute to a total, each contributing value should use its own colour consistently across tooltips, scripted localisation, decision text, feature text, and UI summaries. If a mechanic has a total value made from components, the tooltip should show a readable breakdown with named and coloured components.
If a mechanic has values such as legitimacy, authority, influence, cohesion, obedience, power, or readiness, then focuses, decisions, and missions should interact with those values directly. A focus tree should not sit beside the mechanic without changing it. A decision system should not sit beside the mechanic without changing it.
Mechanic values should unlock or block content: decisions, focuses, features, missions, leaders, advisors, factions, war goals, reforms, crises, achievements, text and audio packages, or endings. A mechanic should change what the player can do.
When a country has two or more internal power centers, consider a balance-of-power or equivalent system. Focuses and decisions should push the balance, unlock branch content, create risks, and change leaders, laws, advisors, features, or crises.
When a feature creates a faction, league, bloc, coalition, compact, or alliance, define its goals and internal rules. The faction should have a reason to exist, membership rules, joining conditions, refusal logic, expulsion or removal logic where relevant, war goals, shared decisions, AI behavior, victory conditions, and failure conditions.
Important feature-created factions should usually have a mechanic such as cohesion, shared command, war council support, joint reserves, recognition, member confidence, sponsor pressure, or strategic goals. Focuses and decisions should interact with that faction mechanic.
A faction should not form just because one country exists. Define minimum membership, crisis conditions, ideological compatibility, war pressure, diplomatic preparation, and regional logic.
A special mechanic should define success, failure, partial success, and runaway failure states. These states should unlock features, decisions, focus branches, faction changes, wars, reforms, aftermath, achievements, or text and audio packages.
AI must understand mechanic values. It should know when to lower threat, build legitimacy, increase influence, join a faction, avoid dependence, push balance of power, or trigger escalation.
For every special mechanic, the completion report should list mechanic values, what changes them, what they unlock, UI and localisation coverage, AI behavior, focus hooks, decision hooks, feature hooks, and balance checks.
Every special mechanic should define where the player sees it: decision category header, custom scripted GUI, progress meter, scripted localisation tooltip, focus tooltip, national spirit tooltip, or another clear presentation surface. Important mechanic values should not exist only as hidden variables.
When a special mechanic uses a scripted GUI, consider visual presentation beyond static text. Useful designs can include progress bars, meter fill variants, state icons, status frames, warning frames, selected or locked variants, animated frames, or frame-by-frame visual changes that make the mechanic feel alive. The visual layer should make the mechanic easier to understand.
Special mechanics can hide future surprises, but they should not hide basic cause and effect. The player should understand why a visible value rose or fell, which public action changed it, and what kind of response is available.
Faction, league, bloc, or coalition goals should have rewards and failure states. A successful faction goal can unlock shared decisions, war goals, legitimacy, cohesion, member rewards, or postwar settlements. A failed goal can reduce cohesion, trigger exits, invite foreign pressure, start leadership contests, or weaken shared defenses.
New playable country packages must not be generic. Each needs a specific identity, starting problem, political direction, map role, military style, economy, diplomacy, AI behavior, and at least one mechanic or decision family that makes it play differently.
AI strategy must respect route validity. AI should not pick a branch or action that requires a missing state, dead sponsor, non-existent faction, unavailable ideology, disabled escalation variant, impossible border, invalid target, or absent enemy. Invalid routes should be hidden, bypassed, or weighted to zero.
When a route changes leader, ideology, faction, cosmetic name, flag, advisor roster, or special mechanic identity, define the needed visible assets and whether they are sourced, generated, reused, or blocked.
Shared trees are allowed, but they must have country-specific localisation, route names, decisions, AI weights, leaders, rewards, icons, and scripted localisation where relevant. A shared tree fails if every country using it reads and plays the same.
Important mechanic thresholds, caps, gains, losses, duration bands, AI weights, and scaling values should be centralized in script constants or a clearly documented tuning file. Do not scatter magic numbers across decisions, features, focuses, scripted effects, and scripted triggers.
Avoid one-time reward dumps as the main design. A focus, decision, or mission can give factories, units, equipment, resources, buildings, or influence, but important content should often unlock a repeatable decision, timed mission family, production route, advisor, mechanic, route branch, or long-term gameplay system.
One-time rewards are acceptable when they fit the story and balance. They should not become the default design pattern for a major feature, large focus tree, or decision system.
Balance planning should include exploit checks. Look for free unit loops, repeated factory rewards, cheap construction loops, equipment farming, influence farming, puppet abuse, war-goal spam, claim or core spam, advisor discount stacking, bypass abuse, mission success farming, and decisions that can be clicked without meaningful cost or risk.
The spec should tell the implementation agent how to prevent abuse with flags, cooldowns, dynamic costs, escalating costs, one-time completion flags, route locks, target limits, AI limits, cleanup effects, or scripted triggers.
Large decision systems should not show every possible decision at once. The spec should define how decision categories stay readable.
Use phases, caps, priorities, regional pools, route locks, mechanic thresholds, or crisis-state filters so the player sees decisions that matter in the current situation.
Good planning patterns include:
A decision category should feel curated by the current route and campaign state, not like a debug menu.
The implementation agent is responsible for the final exact focus tree shape unless the user asks otherwise.
The implementation agent should:
mutually_exclusive blocksThe spec should give enough creative and structural direction that the agent cannot make a shallow generic tree, while still allowing the agent to build a clean in-game layout.
Focus tree visuals should help the user and implementation agent understand the intended branch structure. The spec may include a high-level branch diagram, lane map, or route sketch for major trees, but it should not try to lock every final focus coordinate unless the user explicitly asks for that.
A useful focus tree visual should show:
The visual should be readable, symmetrical where possible, and free of tangled connector lines. It should not contain random crossing lines or misleading geometry.
If the spec creates a graph or diagram, it should be treated as a design guide unless the user says it must match the final in-game tree exactly. The implementation agent may adjust the final layout to make the actual HOI4 tree cleaner.
Do not spend excessive planning effort forcing exact graph coordinates if the result becomes ugly, brittle, or unhelpful. A clear path architecture is more important than a fake exact graph.
When the planned feature includes a focus tree, scripted GUI, or map work, add an implementation note for the MCP tools: after planning, inspect the target mod, render a review artifact, and apply the complete focus plan or map and GUI operation set. The normal owning skill still controls design, source review, assets, and final validation.
Achievements are mandatory for feature specifications unless the user explicitly says not to include them or the feature is so small that achievements would be dishonest. Major features, custom countries, deep focus trees, rare variants, international-order routes, or text and audio packages always need achievements.
Achievements should be creative and difficult. Do not design achievements that unlock just because the feature appeared, because the player clicked the obvious option, or because a country survived a few days. Achievements should reward mastery, unusual campaign states, risky choices, hidden routes, hard containment, difficult victories, or rare escalated outcomes.
A good achievement should usually require several conditions at once, such as:
Do not make achievements conservative. If the feature has dark paths, extreme-route tags, strange mechanics, foreign influence systems, coalition politics, or international-order ambitions, design achievements for them. Difficult achievements can require long campaigns, high escalation, multiple wars, internal crises, and careful decision play.
For each achievement, define:
Achievement design must include asset planning. Each achievement needs a 64x64 completed icon direction, and the asset prompt must hand those icons to hoi4-feature-assets. Grey, locked, and not-eligible variants can be produced later if the achievement system requires them.
The achievement list should include a spread of routes. Do not put all achievements on the safest or most obvious path. Cover containment, failure recovery, republic victories, foreign influence, special factions, strange countries, extreme-route routes, and secret or hard branches when those exist.
If a feature creates many playable tags, design achievements for the most important ones and for the feature-wide systems. A large feature can justify dozens of achievements. The achievement prompt should still explain which ones are highest priority if implementation must be staged.
Baseline stages and escalation variants are different.
Baseline stages describe the ordinary flow of the feature. They are the expected crisis lifecycle, such as first outbreak, containment attempt, spread, coalition formation, deep collapse, settlement, or defeat.
Escalation variants are mutation tracks layered on top of the baseline. They make the feature more predictable in some ways, more severe, stranger, more patterned, or more replayable. They can add new actors, new rules, new incidents, new tags, old movements, strange variants, stronger breakaways, or rare side branches.
Do not treat ordinary stages as special escalation variants.
Do not use escalation tiers as simple walls that lock ordinary stage progression. Ordinary stages should flow from the feature state. Escalation should affect intensity, probability, severity, weirdness, and opening strength.
When a feature has escalation variants, the spec must say how each escalation variant enters play. Do not write escalation variants only as future modifiers or only as post-fire upgrades unless that is truly the design.
Use two separate entry-path concepts when the feature supports both.
Active feature escalation variant means the feature is already active and an escalation variant unlocks while one or more actors from that feature still exist or the feature system is still active. The spec must define what changes immediately for the active actors: focus paths, decision families, national spirits, unit growth, targeting rules, AI strategy, faction behavior, source-researched text or audio eligibility, and cleanup. The feature should not need to activate again for the active actor to receive the escalation variant content.
Pre-activation escalated opening means the feature has not started yet, but the world state, escalation tier, previous escalation variant memory, or other allowed feature trigger lets the first activation start in a more escalated form. The spec must define the changed opening package: number of actors, target selection, starting ideas, initial units, first decisions, opening features, AI plan.
If both entry paths exist, write both explicitly under one escalation variant. For example, a feature may have an active escalation variant that unlocks a focus path for an already spawned country, while a later first run may start with multiple spawned countries.
If the repository uses a staged escalation model, keep stages readable and avoid stacking multiple unrelated variants behind the same threshold.
Good escalation variants can include:
Each escalation variant should define:
Everything that acts like pressure, cooldown, progress, chance, support, duration, cost, tempo, AI willingness, spawn strength, aid amount, stage movement, or recognition should be dynamic by default.
Avoid fixed values as design answers. A fixed number may exist as a tuning anchor, but the spec should define the factors that shape it.
Dynamic factors can include:
Do not say only that a cooldown is 30 days or a pressure increase is 5. Say what makes it shorter, longer, stronger, weaker, safer, or more dangerous.
Dynamic behavior should still be readable. Define cause and effect clearly so the player can learn the pattern through features and decisions.
Political power and command power are useful, but they are usually the least interesting costs. Do not let major decisions, missions, focuses, or crisis responses become a long list of political power and command power purchases.
A good cost should express what the country is actually spending, risking, or sacrificing in the story. A military crackdown may spend command power, but it should also strain units, consume equipment, lower stability, damage war support, pull divisions away from another front, increase resistance, or worsen a crisis pressure. A foreign intervention may spend political power, but it should also require relations work, liaison access, convoys, fuel, equipment shipments, intelligence exposure, or patronage risk. A mobilization decision may use manpower, infantry equipment, support equipment, training time, army XP, supply, local support, or legitimacy.
When mapping costs, use a varied cost palette where it fits the mechanic:
Political power or command power may still be one part of a cost, but they should not be the default answer. If a section uses mostly political power or command power, redesign it unless the story clearly demands bureaucratic or command attention.
Costs should be dynamic. The amount and type of cost should react to country size, escalation tier, stability, war state, equipment stockpiles, supply state, front pressure, foreign access, local legitimacy, previous choices, AI situation, and current feature pressure. A weak country should not pay the same cost as a strong country when the story says the burden is different.
Map blocked localisation for nonstandard costs. The player should understand whether they lack infantry equipment, support equipment, divisions in the right state, local support, army XP, fuel, rail control, relations, foreign route access, or another requirement.
For every major decision family, include at least one cost or requirement that is not political power or command power unless the spec explains why that family is purely bureaucratic.
Major feature specs must include a real AI section. Do not leave AI behavior as a vague note that the coding agent can decide later.
The AI section should map how every important affected country behaves across the feature. This includes the feature owner, breakaways, custom tags, transformed existing tags, foreign sponsors, faction leaders, nearby countries, rivals, allies, and countries that can exploit or contain the feature.
For each important AI actor or actor group, define:
For weighted behavior, give the implementation agent named scenarios and the expected ordering, timing band, dominance limit, or starvation limit to test. Direct it to begin with hoi4.probability_inspect, use hoi4.probability_evaluate for the scenario matrix, hoi4.probability_sweep for thresholds and rank reversals, and hoi4.probability_compare after implementation. Reserve hoi4.probability_simulate for explicitly declared uncertain inputs and hoi4.probability_sequence for a complete declared custom pool with cadence and state transitions. Request hoi4.probability_render when a ranking, matrix, timing, sensitivity, sequence, comparison, or unresolved view will make the handoff easier to review. Do not specify an exact selection probability when the candidate pool or external factors are not complete.
For focus trees, the spec must define AI path behavior at the branch level and for key individual focuses. If a large tree has mutually exclusive paths, secret routes, or dangerous extreme-route paths, specify which AI personalities or campaign states can choose them. Extreme-route AI should be allowed to make strange or extreme choices when that is the point, but ordinary AI should not accidentally choose suicidal or nonsensical branches.
For foreign influence mechanics, the AI section must explain how major powers decide whether to recognize, fund, arm, infiltrate, puppet, betray, or abandon new countries. If volunteers, expeditionary support, proxy wars, or faction invitations exist, AI behavior must be mapped for those too.
A good AI section should make the implementation agent unable to create generic AI weights while claiming to follow the spec.
When a feature creates, releases, transforms, or significantly modifies a country, the spec must define that country as a full package. This applies to new custom tags and to existing countries that gain feature-specific political identities, focus trees, flags, leaders, cosmetic names, ideology names, starting forces, or mechanics.
For every new country, and every existing country that is meaningfully changed, the spec should provide a country package matrix or equivalent structured section. It must cover:
Do not treat a custom country as complete because it has a tag and one flag. A serious country needs identity, politics, names, flags, leaders, starting forces, force-growth routes, mechanics, decisions, AI, localisation, assets, and route changes. If the country is only temporary and does not need a full package, the spec must explain why.
Political identity should be dynamic when the content supports it. Focus routes, ideology changes, coups, faction victories, foreign puppeting, religious transformations, extreme-route mutations, monarchist restorations, military takeovers, revolutionary councils, or international-order paths should be able to change the country name, flag, ruling party, leader, leader portrait, leader trait, cosmetic tag, national spirits, available decisions, and available recruitment systems when appropriate.
Country names must be direct public country names that remain readable on the map.
Do not build public country names from internal political attachments. Avoid names that use terms such as Military Office, Compact, Bureau, Authority, Mission, Board, or similar administrative labels as the country name. These terms can exist as mechanics, focus groups, advisors, decisions, councils, ministries, internal institutions, route labels, or faction mechanics when they fit. They should not be the public name printed on the map.
Ideology-specific country names are allowed when they fit the route. Sultanate, Kingdom, Empire, Republic, Union, Commune, Federation, and similar public state forms are valid when they match the ideology, historical claim, route, or formable identity.
Prefer names built from the country, people, dynasty, region, or formable identity, then add a simple public state form only when it improves clarity. Style examples include:
AsanteKingdom of AsanteAsante RepublicSultanate of KilwaKongoKongo CommuneDo not overload country names with political office language. The political office, emergency cabinet, military committee, colonial mission, compact council, bureau, authority, or board can be a mechanic or institution inside the country package. The map name should stay short and readable.
Names may depend on ideology, route, leader, formable status, puppet status, or extreme-route transformation. Even then, the public name should remain a country name, not an agency name.
For alternate governments, design internal bodies and party names separately from public country names. A route can have named councils, committees, directorates, juntas, congresses, restoration offices, cult offices, leagues, syndicates, ministries, synods, communes, or military commands. Those institution names should fit the country story, region, history, route, and ideological language without replacing the public country name.
When a feature creates, transforms, releases, or empowers countries, check whether formable nations should be part of the design. A formable is a meaningful country identity that appears after a country satisfies territorial, political, feature, focus, or hidden-route requirements. Do not treat formables as only a cosmetic rename.
Formable public names must follow the country naming rules above. The formation decision, congress, authority structure, charter, settlement, or council can have its own institutional name, but the formed map name should stay a direct country or formable name.
A formable design should define:
Do not write vague lines such as can form a greater country. Define the concrete formation web. If the player must control this state, this state, and this state, name those states or name the scripted state group and explain what it contains. If the exact state ids are left to implementation, describe the intended geographic set clearly enough that the implementation agent can build a scripted trigger without guessing.
Hidden formables should still be designed fully. The spec can hide player-facing names and spoilers, but the implementation handoff must describe the unlock route, required flags, reveal feature, decision visibility, AI behavior, rewards, assets, and disqualifiers.
Formation routes should interact with focus trees and decisions. A focus can reveal or prepare the claim, while a decision performs the formation after the map requirement is met. A decision can form the country directly, while later focuses stabilize it, core it, claim further territory, or resolve internal factions. Avoid giving a formable through a focus alone when the player should prove control over named land first.
When a feature creates, releases, transforms, restores, or revives a country that is expected to fight, survive, defend itself, or matter militarily, the spec must define its starting forces. Newly appearing countries should not spawn as empty tags unless they are explicitly non-military administrative placeholders and the spec explains why.
Starting units must be dynamic. Do not define one flat number of divisions for every country. The spec should explain what makes the starting force stronger, weaker, larger, smaller, better equipped, more irregular, more professional, more defensive, more foreign-backed, or stranger.
Useful scaling factors include:
For every meaningful new or transformed country, map:
The spec must also map how newly appearing countries can get more units after spawning. This should include decisions, timed objectives, focus rewards, volunteer systems, depot captures, foreign missions, local mobilization, League or faction training, factory guard mobilization, border guard formation, or special extreme-route recruitment where appropriate.
Do not make reinforcement depend only on political power or command power. Use concrete goals and resources such as holding a capital, guarding a border, controlling a depot, controlling rail lines, spending army XP, consuming equipment, committing manpower, using fuel or trains, securing local support, opening a foreign corridor, finishing a construction quota, proving legitimacy by a deadline, placing divisions in required states, or keeping a volunteer route open.
Unit-creating focuses and decisions must be specific. Avoid repeated generic rewards such as add two infantry divisions across many countries. A unit reward should explain the institution and story behind the unit, such as capital defense committees, local garrison defections, railway guards, factory guard shifts, mountain pass detachments, Black Banner columns, sailor battalions, Basmachi cavalry, ancient host militias, medical volunteers, foreign-trained cadres, or extreme-route special units.
Each unit-creating focus or decision should define:
For focus trees, military growth should be integrated into branches. Some focuses can spawn units directly, but others should unlock decisions, improve templates, recruit commanders, create volunteer corridors, integrate militias, convert irregulars into regulars, expand special units, or change mobilisation rules. A deep tree should offer different ways to build an army depending on politics, foreign influence, economy, terrain, ideology, and escalation state.
When a feature adds a visible unit, building, creature, vehicle, aircraft, naval object, map entity, or other 3D surface, plan the model package as a first-class feature surface rather than treating it as an optional render.
Classify the asset before writing the brief: static prop, building, humanoid unit, non-humanoid creature, vehicle, aircraft, naval object, or articulated attachment.
For a unit, define the gameplay consumer, unit category or sub-unit, entity key, .asset key, .mesh key, material and texture paths, icon or text-icon requirements, idle action, movement action, attack action, death or destruction action when relevant, and the exact country, province, state, or map test that will show it.
For a building or map entity, define the building key, entity key, mesh key, state and province placement, valid state-to-province relationship, level or construction behavior, zoom visibility, rotation, runtime scale, and a test location that is inside the intended state and does not hide the model behind an existing building.
If the parent does not provide a ready reference image, plan exactly one clean Meshy-ready reference image for the asset and route it through the approved image-generation workflow before the provider gate.
Never plan a side-profile sheet, turnaround board, collage, or multi-view board as a Meshy input. Blender QA views and contact sheets are review evidence only and must never be sent to Meshy.
The brief must name the installed vanilla mesh and entity that establish axes, orientation, source geometry height, entity scale, origin, ground or water contact, and effective runtime height.
For humanoid units, the custom source geometry must match the named vanilla source mesh height and the entity scale must be applied exactly once. Record source height, entity scale, effective runtime height, coordinate axes, facing direction, origin, and the measurement evidence in the plan.
For every requested skeletal action, define the semantic role, action name, FPS, frame range, loop policy, root-motion or in-place policy, ground-contact requirement, retarget or authoring route, static fallback policy, runtime binding, and acceptance evidence.
Do not let a static render or still mesh stand in for a requested skeletal animation. If an action cannot be produced, the implementation handoff must mark it blocked or needs_user_review with the reason.
The model package must plan provider lineage, Blender source and normalized/repaired/material/rigged/action/pre-export checkpoints, processed textures, PDX material channel mapping, .mesh and .anim exports, reimport proof, runtime hashes, and final live-consumer screenshots.
The asset plan must distinguish provider source files from final runtime copies. It must require a final hash-aware synchronization step so an older mapped texture, mesh, entity, or animation cannot overwrite the approved runtime candidate.
Route production to hoi4_3d_model_pipeline with fork_context=false and give it the exact job root, reference status, asset profile, vanilla references, scale relationship, action list, dependency lock, credit limits, and handoff path.
The main implementation agent owns .asset, entity, .gfx, unit/building/gameplay wiring, valid province and state placement, live runtime validation, and in-game evidence.
| Surface | Minimum planned evidence |
|---|---|
| Humanoid unit | Vanilla source-height measurement, entity-scale crosswalk, repaired geometry, PDX material audit, idle/move/attack actions, .mesh/.anim reimport proof, unit consumer, movement test, and screenshot |
| Building or static map entity | Vanilla building precedent, valid state/province pair, entity and .asset existence, mesh/material proof, scale and zoom test, construction or level test, and screenshot |
| Creature, vehicle, aircraft, or naval object | Profile-specific axis and contact calibration, topology/material proof, required action list, export/reimport proof, entity/runtime wiring, and domain-appropriate live test |
Everything visible or meaningful needs an asset plan. A major spec should not only define a few feature images. It should identify assets for countries, focus trees, decisions, ideas, national spirits, achievements, flags, portraits, faction emblems, text and audio packages, feature images, UI, unit systems, and route-specific identity changes.
Every focus in a mapped focus tree needs an icon direction. Large trees may use reusable icon packs, but the spec must still state which focuses use which motif or icon category. Do not leave hundreds of focuses with no asset guidance.
Every decision, decision category, idea, national spirit, achievement, faction emblem, UI panel, news image, report image, custom feature image, leader or council portrait, and important special-unit identity that appears in the feature needs an asset entry or a clear asset-family entry.
Every country package must include flags. Required flag coverage includes normal, medium, and small sizes for each implemented flag state. If the country has ideology-specific names, focus-tree transformations, puppet identities, restored historical forms, radical routes, or extreme-route mutations, the spec must identify whether those states need separate flags.
Historical and real-world flags should not be invented with $imagegen by default. If a country, movement, party, military authority, or restoration path has a real historical flag or a well-attested symbolic design, the asset prompt should instruct the asset agent to source that flag or symbol from a reliable source, document it, and convert it into HOI4 flag sizes. Use $imagegen only for fictional, alternate, supernatural, or deliberately invented flag identities when generated art is appropriate.
Historical or real leaders should not be generated. The spec should identify likely real portrait needs and instruct the asset agent to source real images, document source and license status, and crop them to HOI4 portrait size. Fictional leaders, council portraits, cult leaders, alternate invented officers, and symbolic committee portraits can use $imagegen when generated art is appropriate.
When an asset source is historically sensitive, disputed, or politically loaded, the asset prompt must require source notes, and a clear distinction between sourced historical use and fictional alternate-history invention.
Do not design important feature effects with timid, decorative, or micro values. If an idea, decision, focus, mission, national spirit, crisis response, starting debuff, or route payoff is supposed to matter, its effects must be strong enough for the player to feel and plan around.
Micro modifiers do not count as meaningful design. Avoid values such as plus 2 percent, minus 3 percent, or tiny flat changes as the main reward, penalty, starting debuff, crisis modifier, or route payoff. A small modifier can support a larger effect package only when it belongs to a visible stacking system, a frequent tick, or a clearly explained cumulative mechanic. It cannot be the whole design.
Starting negative debuffs must matter. They should create real pressure on survival, production, mobilisation, logistics, legitimacy, command, diplomacy, state control, AI behavior, or player priorities. A starting problem that the player can ignore has failed. The spec should map how the player feels the debuff, why it exists, which choices mitigate it, and what happens if it is left unresolved.
A good effect package should do at least one meaningful thing:
Effects should fit the feature story. A desperate military measure should affect units, equipment, losses, command, supply, stability, or war support. A logistical crisis should interact with trains, fuel, depots, supply, equipment, routes, or tied-down units. A legitimacy crisis should affect stability, war support, recognition, internal factions, local support, or authority. A foreign intervention system should create influence, dependence, access, backlash, or diplomatic consequences.
Normal countries still need balance, but balance must come from costs, timing, risks, limits, tradeoffs, counterplay, AI validity, and route locks. Do not create fake balance by making the numbers too small to matter.
Special feature-created countries are different. They do not have to be balanced against ordinary countries. If a special feature-created country finishes its path, final route, extreme-route transformation, or full mechanic loop, the payoff must be absurd, dangerous, and visibly overpowered when the concept supports it. A completed special feature-created country can receive extreme buffs, extreme penalties to enemies, impossible-seeming armies, unnatural production, severe combat bonuses, global pressure, map-changing powers, or other absurd effects if the route earned them.