game-test
Skill2 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub
Verify game behaviour - choose and write unit, integration, play-mode or manual/playtest checks for a feature, run what the environment allows, and report observed vs unverified results. Use when the user asks to test, add tests, verify, check a milestone's completion criteria, or write a playtest plan. Performance baselines belong to game-optimize.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- game-debugSkill
- game-dev-questlineSkill
- game-implementSkill
- game-optimizeSkill
- game-planSkill
- game-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 11
Read before starting: references/principles.md, references/project-profile.md and the project profile itself, …
- Distinctive: line 15
Target: - when the work belongs to a milestone or a ticket, start from its completion criteria and from the limits and metrics in the …
- Distinctive: line 25
Run it against a build that contains the change.
- Very specific: line 26
Check every Must hold condition and record each one as held, failed or not checked.
- Distinctive: line 27
Use the tools available here (browser automation, screenshots).
- Distinctive: line 29
No first-use check in the profile: propose one (path and what must hold) and treat the experience as a named gap.
- Distinctive: line 55
call a playtest done when it was only planned
- Very specific: line 56
call the first-use check passed because the state tests pass, or with a Must hold condition left unchecked
- Distinctive: line 57
run the first-use path on a build that predates the change
- Distinctive: line 58
test the implementation's internals when a behaviour test exists
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
game-test
Pick the cheapest test that would catch the real failure, run it if you can, and never blur observed with assumed.
Read before starting: references/principles.md, references/project-profile.md and the project profile itself, references/question-format.md, and the test entry of profile: Sources of truth.
Process
- Target - when the work belongs to a milestone or a ticket, start from its completion criteria and from the limits and metrics in the technical docs. Each criterion becomes a behaviour to check, or a named gap.
- Behaviour - state the behaviour under test and its edge cases: failure paths, state transitions, serialization round-trips, input edge cases (held, repeated, simultaneous), platform cases (frame rate, resolution, controller vs keyboard), and netcode cases (latency, loss, authority) when relevant.
- Pick the layer - from the project's existing checks (
verified;profile: Checks), not from preference:- unit for pure rules (damage formulas, state machines, economy math)
- integration for systems talking to each other (save/load, spawner + encounter data)
- play-mode / headless scene for things that need the engine loop (physics, animation events, input)
- manual / playtest for feel, readability and fun - give an observation checklist, not opinions
- Write tests in the project's conventions: same framework, folder, naming and exit behaviour as the existing checks, and register the new check wherever the project lists its commands. Keep each check to one behaviour. Rule checks use simulated time and seeded random; behaviour the project defines in real time keeps its real-time checks (
profile: Time in tests). - Run what can run here, with a timeout when a run can hang. Paste the exact command and the real output. A check that needs a service, a device or a credential you do not have is a named gap, not a pass.
- First use - whenever the work changes what a new player sees in the first minutes, with or without a milestone or ticket, run the first-use path (
profile: First-use check) after step 4:- Run it against a build that contains the change. When the path runs on an export or a packaged build, rebuild it first, even if the profile calls that build slow or only needed when its settings change.
- Check every
Must holdcondition and record each one as held, failed or not checked. A run with any condition not checked is not a pass. - Use the tools available here (browser automation, screenshots). Without them, hand the path to the user as a checklist; until someone runs it, it is a named gap.
- Append the run to
Runsin the project profile, newest first; never replace or delete earlier runs. - No first-use check in the profile: propose one (path and what must hold) and treat the experience as a named gap.
- Report gaps honestly.
Playtest plan format
Playtest enemy readability
Goal: do players see the attack coming?
Setup: greybox arena, 3 enemy types, 3 players new to the build
Observe: deaths the player calls "unfair"; time-to-first-dodge per enemy
Stop/Go: go if <= 1 unfair death per 5 min; otherwise rework telegraphsClosing
Tests: added/changed files, one line each
Commands: exactly what was run
Results: pass/fail counts and notable output, or "could not run: <reason>"
First use: date, person or agent + exact model, tools, build used, each Must hold condition held/failed/not checked; or "not run: <reason>"
Gaps: behaviours still untested; checks that need a device/engine/personNever
- show test output that did not come from a tool run
- call a playtest done when it was only planned
- call the first-use check passed because the state tests pass, or with a
Must holdcondition left unchecked - run the first-use path on a build that predates the change
- test the implementation's internals when a behaviour test exists
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

