Playtest Report

> Port provenance: adapted from the pinned upstream source at 984023ddac0d5e27624f2baacde6105e45de375f under MIT; see the repository parity ledger for the exact path and blob.

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 the installed Codex role-gate protocol 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 $ai-game-studio:propagate-design-change [path] on the affected design document to find downstream impacts before making changes."
• Balance adjustments: "Run $ai-game-studio:balance-check [system] to verify the full balance picture before tuning values."
• Bugs: "Use $ai-game-studio: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 with a Codex subagent using gate CD-PLAYTEST (the installed Codex role-gate protocol).

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 $ai-game-studio:design-review on the updated GDD.
• After fixing bugs: re-run $ai-game-studio:bug-triage to update priorities.

Codex portability

Use the search, file-editing, shell, user-input, and subagent capabilities available in the active Codex surface. Use PowerShell syntax on Windows and POSIX syntax on macOS/Linux; do not require a Unix compatibility layer on Windows. Inherit the active model and permission mode, and do not weaken approval or sandbox boundaries.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: frabcd
• Source: frabcd/codex-ai-game-studio
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://frabcd.github.io/codex-ai-game-studio/

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.