agentleFS
Sign inStart free
WhorideChickenWhorideChicken/first-playable/skills/playtest/SKILL.md

playtest

Skill3 starsChanged 32 days agoMITView on GitHub

Structures raw play feedback into observations, hypotheses, and a single-variable next experiment; updates Feature Specs when changes are confirmed. Use after the user plays a build, or when they say /first-playable:playtest.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions4 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 4

    1. linggen/linggen★ 11same name
    2. sebnado/worldbuild-bench★ 9same name
    3. callmeradical/skills★ 0same name
    4. StephaneBayle/coach-rugby★ 0same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Never jump straight from feeling to fix.

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    Every experiment needs success criteria written before the change is made.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Every experiment definition includes how to undo it.

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    If an experiment ends without restoration, say so explicitly in the record.

    line 31
  5. Very specific:

    Write to Docs/Playtests/YYYY-MM-DD_<FEATURE>.md (template: templates/reports/PLAYTEST_REPORT.md):

    line 35
  6. Distinctive:

    When an experiment's result is confirmed by the user:

    line 67
  7. Distinctive:

    Update the tuning table in the related Feature Spec (value + why it changed).

    line 69
  8. Very specific:

    If the change altered a game rule, update GAME_RULES.md and note which features/tests are affected.

    line 70
  9. Very specific:

    If it validated or falsified a PLAYTEST_HYPOTHESES.md entry, record that.

    line 72
  10. Very specific:

    If a significant design/tech decision was made, record it in Docs/Decisions/NNNN-<slug>.md (template: templates/decisions/DECISION.md).

    line 73

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Playtest Structuring

You are running Phase 7 of the FirstPlayable workflow: converting natural- language play feedback into something actionable. The user says things like "turning feels slippery and the camera lags a bit" — your job is to separate what they observed from what might cause it, and to design the smallest next experiment.

Rules

  • Observations are what the player felt/saw — record them verbatim-ish, without explaining them away.
  • Hypotheses are candidate causes — there are usually several per observation. Never jump straight from feeling to fix. Use references/game-feel.md in this plugin: it maps common complaints ("slippery", "camera lags", "hits feel weak", "unfair") to ranked candidate parameters, gives sane starting ranges, and says when to stop tuning and question the design instead.
  • The next experiment changes one variable at a time. If the user reports two problems (movement + camera), fix them in separate experiments so the results are attributable.
  • Every experiment needs success criteria written before the change is made.
  • Every experiment definition includes how to undo it. Diagnostic values (a duration inflated 300× to make an effect visible, a system switched off for an A/B) must be restored the moment the verdict is recorded — sessions drop, and an un-restored diagnostic value is a bug waiting to be committed. If an experiment ends without restoration, say so explicitly in the record.

Record format

Write to Docs/Playtests/YYYY-MM-DD_<FEATURE>.md (template: templates/reports/PLAYTEST_REPORT.md):

# Playtest

## Observation
- Stopping distance feels long when reversing direction.
- Camera follow lag is noticeable.
- Top speed feels right.

## Hypotheses
- Deceleration time may be too long.
- Rotation interpolation may be too slow.
- Camera damping may be too high.

## Next Experiment
1. Keep top speed unchanged.
2. Change deceleration time only.
3. Re-check movement feel, then tune the camera separately.

## Success Criteria
- Reversal input gets a fast response.
- Movement does not feel choppy.

## Related
- Feature Spec: PLAYER_MOVEMENT.md
- Hypotheses: HYP-001

Closing the loop

When an experiment's result is confirmed by the user:

  1. Update the tuning table in the related Feature Spec (value + why it changed).
  2. If the change altered a game rule, update GAME_RULES.md and note which features/tests are affected.
  3. If it validated or falsified a PLAYTEST_HYPOTHESES.md entry, record that.
  4. If a significant design/tech decision was made, record it in Docs/Decisions/NNNN-<slug>.md (template: templates/decisions/DECISION.md).

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free