Claude-Code-Game-Studios 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.

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/.claude/skills/playtest-report" ~/.claude/skills/donchitos-claude-code-game-studios-playtest-report && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: .claude/skills/playtest-report/SKILL.md

source content

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

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

If
```
--review [full|lean|solo]
```
was passed → use that
Else read
```
production/review-mode.txt
```
→ use that value
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.