| name | game-design-smart-goal-audit |
| description | Audit game design goals, feature objectives, OKRs, initiative aims, or any stated design intent against the SMART criteria adapted for game design. Use when a user shares a design goal, player experience target, retention goal, or feature aim and wants it evaluated or rewritten. Trigger on phrases like "audit my design goals", "is this a good design objective", "my feature goal is...", "we want players to feel...", "our aim for this feature is...", or whenever someone states what a design should achieve and it feels vague or unmeasurable. Also trigger when a design document contains aims or success criteria that need stress-testing. Even soft goals like "players should feel powerful" are valid — apply the framework and return both the audit and a rewritten version. |
Game Design SMART Goal Audit
Audit game design goals against the SMART criteria, adapted for the realities of game design work — where goals often mix player experience intentions, behavioral outcomes, and business metrics.
Why SMART in Game Design
Game design goals often fail in predictable ways:
- Too vague to evaluate: "Players should feel engaged" — what does engaged look like? How do you know when you've achieved it?
- Unmeasurable by intent: "The loop should feel good" — feeling is real, but untestable without a proxy metric or a defined observation method.
- Scoped to infinity: "Improve retention" — which segment? Which part of the funnel? By how much?
- Disconnected from the design itself: A goal that could apply to any feature is not a design goal, it's a business wish.
SMART forces clarity. Applied to game design, it helps distinguish design intent (what experience you're crafting) from design success criteria (how you'll know you achieved it).
The SMART Framework — Game Design Interpretation
| Letter | Criterion | Game design lens |
|---|
| S | Specific | Does the goal name a concrete mechanic, system, player segment, moment, or behavior — not just a vague direction? |
| M | Measurable | Is there a metric, behavioral signal, playtest observation method, or proxy indicator that confirms the goal was achieved? |
| A | Achievable | Is it realistic given team size, scope, platform, timeline, and existing systems? Does it avoid over-promising on player behavior? |
| R | Relevant | Does it connect to the game's pillars, the feature's purpose, or a known player need? Would hitting this goal actually matter? |
| T | Time-bound | Does it have a milestone, sprint, release, or playtest checkpoint attached? |
Audit Process
Step 1: Identify goal type
Before auditing, classify the goal — this shapes how you apply SMART:
- Experience goal — describes a player feeling or state ("players feel powerful")
- Behavioral goal — describes a player action or pattern ("players return 3 sessions per week")
- Design output goal — describes what the team will build ("ship the crafting system in Q2")
- Metric goal — describes a KPI or indicator ("increase D7 retention by 5%")
- Mixed goal — combines intent and outcome (common, often the weakest)
Flag the type at the top of the audit. Experience goals require special handling — they need a proxy metric or observation method to become measurable.
Step 2: Score each SMART criterion
For each criterion:
- ✅ Strong — clearly met
- ⚠️ Partial — implied or weakly present
- ❌ Missing — absent
Write 1–2 sentences per criterion explaining specifically what is strong or what is missing. For game design goals, pay special attention to:
- S: Is the player segment named? Is the game moment or system named?
- M: For experience goals, is there a playtest method, behavioral proxy, or survey instrument defined?
- A: Does the goal respect the scope and constraints of the feature or team?
- R: Does the goal connect to a design pillar, player need, or business objective?
- T: Is there a playtest gate, milestone, or release tied to evaluation?
Step 3: Overall assessment
2–3 sentences on the goal's overall quality. Name the single biggest weakness and why it matters.
Step 4: Rewrite the goal
Rewrite as a stronger SMART version that:
- Preserves the original design intent
- Adds a concrete scope, measurable signal, and timeframe
- For experience goals: adds a proxy metric or observation method (e.g., "as measured by playtest sessions showing X behavior" or "validated by a post-session survey score of Y")
- Flags assumptions in brackets: [assumed: D7 retention proxy] [assumed: Q3 milestone]
- Avoids inventing design decisions the team hasn't made
Step 5: Coaching note (optional)
If the goal reveals a pattern — e.g., all goals are experience-focused with no measurement plan, or all goals are metric-focused with no design intent — add a brief pattern observation.
Output Format
## Goal: [quote or paraphrase]
**Type**: [Experience / Behavioral / Design output / Metric / Mixed]
### SMART Audit
**S – Specific**: [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] [explanation]
**M – Measurable**: [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] [explanation]
**A – Achievable**: [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] [explanation]
**R – Relevant**: [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] [explanation]
**T – Time-bound**: [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] [explanation]
### Overall
[2–3 sentence summary. Name the biggest weakness.]
### Rewritten Goal
> [Improved SMART version]
[Assumptions noted if any]
If multiple goals are provided, audit each in sequence, then add a Patterns Across Goals section if relevant.
Tone and approach
- Treat this like a senior designer giving a brief review — direct, specific, not condescending.
- Don't reject experience goals as "unmeasurable by nature." Instead, challenge the team to define the measurement method (playtest behavior, NPS proxy, session survey, behavioral telemetry).
- If a goal is genuinely well-written, say so briefly and move on. Don't pad weak praise.
- If the user provides context (game genre, player segment, live vs. pre-launch) — use it. Goals that are vague in isolation might be appropriate for the stage.
- If a goal is really a vision statement or principle, flag it gently: "This reads more like a design pillar than a goal — here's how to turn it into one."
