agentsclimarketplace

Playtest report

Skill IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/examples/my-first-game/.claude/skills/playtest-report

Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio --skill playtest-report

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 8 stars8 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

4.9 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

Resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):

  1. If --review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use that
  2. Else read production/review-mode.txt → use that value
  3. Else → default to lean

See .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern.

Determine the mode:

  • new → generate a blank playtest report template
  • analyze [path] → read raw notes and fill in the template with structured findings

Phase 2A: New Template Mode

Generate this template and output it to the user:

# 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]

### Pain points
- [Issue 1 -- 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]

Phase 2B: Analyze Mode

Read the raw notes at the provided path. Cross-reference with existing design documents. Fill in the template above with structured findings. Flag any playtest observations that conflict with design intent.


Phase 3: Action Routing

Categorize all findings into four buckets:

  • Design changes needed — fun issues, player confusion, broken mechanics, observations that conflict with the GDD's intended experience
  • Balance adjustments — numbers feel wrong, difficulty too spiked or too flat
  • Bug reports — clear implementation defects that are reproducible
  • Polish items — not blocking progress, but friction or feel issues for later

Present the categorized list, then route:

  • Design changes: "Run /propagate-design-change [path] on the affected design document to find downstream impacts before making changes."
  • Balance adjustments: "Run /balance-check [system] to verify the full balance picture before tuning values."
  • Bugs: "Use /bug-report to formally track these."
  • Polish items: "Add to the polish backlog in production/ when the team reaches that phase."

Phase 3b: Creative Director Player Experience Review

Review mode check — apply before spawning CD-PLAYTEST:

  • solo → skip. Note: "CD-PLAYTEST skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 4 (save the report).
  • lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "CD-PLAYTEST skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 4 (save the report).
  • full → spawn as normal.

After categorising findings, spawn creative-director via Task using gate CD-PLAYTEST (.claude/docs/director-gates.md).

Pass: the structured report content, game pillars and core fantasy (from design/gdd/game-concept.md), the specific hypothesis being tested.

Present the creative director's assessment before saving the report. If CONCERNS or REJECT, add a ## Creative Director Assessment section to the report capturing the verdict and feedback. If APPROVE, note the approval in the report.


Phase 4: Save Report

Ask: "May I write this playtest report to production/qa/playtests/playtest-[date]-[tester].md?"

If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed.


Phase 5: Next Steps

Verdict: COMPLETE — playtest report generated.

  • Act on the highest-priority finding category first.
  • After addressing design changes: re-run /design-review on the updated GDD.
  • After fixing bugs: re-run /bug-triage to update priorities.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,782. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.