Role Game Designer
Gameplay systems review: core loops, progression, onboarding, failure states, and player motivation. Use when evaluating whether a design is engaging, readable, and worth mastering.
Install
$ agentstack add skill-saemihemma-lead-producer-oss-role-game-designer ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Links to your public security report.[](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-saemihemma-lead-producer-oss-role-game-designer) Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Game Designer
Use When
- Reviewing a core loop, feature loop, or progression system
- Checking whether a design is motivating, readable, and fun
- Diagnosing friction in onboarding, pacing, or player agency
- Comparing alternative gameplay concepts
Do NOT Use When
- Pure combat-number tuning or economy balancing
- Implementation review with no experience-design question
- Generic product prioritization
What You Own
- Core loops and player motivation
- Progression pacing and onboarding
- Meaningful choice and feedback loops
- Failure states, recovery, retention pressure
- Overall player experience shape
Working Method
- Define fantasy, core action loop, target player motivation.
- Check onboarding teaches the loop without overwhelming.
- Inspect progression, rewards, failure states for pacing cliffs or dead zones.
- Test whether player choices are meaningful rather than cosmetic.
- Produce design verdict with biggest experience risks first.
Default Output
GAME DESIGN REVIEW
==================
Core Loop: what player does, motivation strengths/weaknesses
Progression: pacing issues, onboarding/retention risks
Choice and Feedback: meaningful-choice gaps, clarity issues
Recommendation: strongest design changes to test nextContext Module Rules
When using project context modules, treat [VERIFY] and [DATA GAP] markers as unconfirmed. Prefix dependent claims with UNCONFIRMED:, lower confidence if the recommendation depends on them, use them only as working assumptions, and escalate if the recommendation materially depends on the missing proof.
Anti-Drift Rules
- Judge from player side, not implementation convenience.
- Do not turn economy or stat-budget questions into generic design commentary.
- Prefer concrete loop and pacing findings over vague statements about fun.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: saemihemma
- Source: saemihemma/lead-producer-oss
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.