map-systems
Skill17 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Decompose a game concept into individual systems, map dependencies, prioritize design order, and create the systems index.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
36 rules. 12 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 13 are very specific to this project.
12
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
11
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
13
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 6
When this skill is invoked:
- Very specific: line 18
If --review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use that
- Common: line 28
Read the game concept and any existing design work.
- Very specific: line 32
Read design/gdd/game-concept.md — fail with a clear message if missing:
- Very specific: line 37
Read design/gdd/game-pillars.md — pillars constrain priority and scope
- Very specific: line 38
Read design/gdd/systems-index.md — if exists, resume from where it left off (update, don't recreate from scratch)
- Common: line 43
Read it and present current status to the user
- Distinctive: line 44
Ask the user directly to ask: "The systems index already exists with [N] systems ([M] designed, [K] not started).
- Common: line 115
UI dependencies: Every gameplay system has a corresponding UI system that depends on it (but UI is designed after the gameplay system)
- Common: line 129
Check for cycles in the dependency graph.
- Common: line 141
Ask the user directly to ask: "Does this dependency ordering look right?
- Common: line 163
Use these heuristics for initial assignment:
- Common: line 167
Alpha: All remaining gameplay systems
- Common: line 175
Ask the user directly to ask: "Do these priority assignments match your vision?
- Distinctive: line 181
"Why" column guidance: When explaining why each system was placed in a priority tier, mix technical necessity with player-experience …
- Very specific: line 232
Ask: "May I write the systems index to design/gdd/systems-index.md?"
- Distinctive: line 234
Wait for approval. Write the file only after "yes."
- Very specific: line 249
After writing, create production/session-state/active.md if it does not exist, then update it with:
- Distinctive: line 256
If the user declined: Verdict: BLOCKED — user did not approve the write.
- Common: line 269
If a system name was provided, find it in the systems index
- Very specific: line 270
If next was used, pick the highest-priority undesigned system (by design order)
- Common: line 271
If the user just finished the index, ask: "Would you like to start designing individual systems now?
- Distinctive: line 275
Ask the user directly for: "Start designing [system-name] now, pick a different system, or stop here?"
- Very specific: line 297
After $design-system completes, ask the user directly:
- Common: line 302
If continuing, return to Step 6a.
- Distinctive: line 308
After the systems index is created (or after designing some systems), present next actions by asking the user directly:
- Distinctive: line 317
After any individual GDD is completed:
- Distinctive: line 334
"May I write to [filepath]?": before every file write
- Distinctive: line 335
Incremental writing: Update the systems index after each system is designed
- Very specific: line 338
Session state updates: Write to production/session-state/active.md after each milestone (index created, system designed, priorities changed)
- Distinctive: line 342
Never: start designing a system without user confirmation.
- Distinctive: line 347
If context reaches or exceeds 70% at any point, append this notice:
- Very specific: line 357
Run $design-system [first-system-in-order] to author the first GDD (use design order from the index)
- Very specific: line 358
Run $map-systems next to always pick the highest-priority undesigned system automatically
- Very specific: line 359
Run $design-review design/gdd/[system].md in a fresh session after each GDD is authored
- Very specific: line 360
Run $gate-check pre-production when all MVP GDDs are authored and reviewed
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 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.
Files
When this skill is invoked:
Parse Arguments
Two modes:
- No argument:
$map-systems— Run the full decomposition workflow (Phases 1-5) to create or update the systems index. next:$map-systems next— Pick the highest-priority undesigned system from the index and hand off to$design-system(Phase 6).
Also resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):
- If
--review [full|lean|solo]was passed → use that - Else read
production/review-mode.txt→ use that value - Else → default to
lean
See ../../docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern.
Phase 1: Read Concept (Required Context)
Read the game concept and any existing design work. This provides the raw material for systems decomposition.
Required:
- Read
design/gdd/game-concept.md— fail with a clear message if missing:"No game concept found at
design/gdd/game-concept.md. Run$brainstormfirst to create one, then come back to decompose it into systems."
Optional (read if they exist):
- Read
design/gdd/game-pillars.md— pillars constrain priority and scope - Read
design/gdd/systems-index.md— if exists, resume from where it left off (update, don't recreate from scratch) - Glob
design/gdd/*.md— check which system GDDs already exist
If the systems index already exists:
- Read it and present current status to the user
- Ask the user directly to ask:
"The systems index already exists with [N] systems ([M] designed, [K] not started).
What would you like to do?"
- Options: "Update the index with new systems", "Design the next undesigned system", "Review and revise priorities"
Phase 2: Systems Enumeration (Collaborative)
Extract and identify all systems the game needs. This is the creative core of the skill — it requires human judgment because concept docs rarely enumerate every system explicitly.
Step 2a: Extract Explicit Systems
Scan the game concept for directly mentioned systems and mechanics:
- Core Mechanics section (most explicit)
- Core Loop section (implies what systems drive each loop tier)
- Technical Considerations section (networking, procedural generation, etc.)
- MVP Definition section (required features = required systems)
Step 2b: Identify Implicit Systems
For each explicit system, identify the hidden systems it implies. Games always need more systems than the concept doc mentions. Use this inference pattern:
- "Inventory" implies: item database, equipment slots, weight/capacity rules, inventory UI, item serialization for save/load
- "Combat" implies: damage calculation, health system, hit detection, status effects, enemy AI, combat UI (health bars, damage numbers), death/respawn
- "Open world" implies: streaming/chunking, LOD system, fast travel, map/minimap, point of interest tracking, world state persistence
- "Multiplayer" implies: networking layer, lobby/matchmaking, state synchronization, anti-cheat, network UI (ping, player list)
- "Crafting" implies: recipe database, ingredient gathering, crafting UI, success/failure mechanics, recipe discovery/learning
- "Dialogue" implies: dialogue tree system, dialogue UI, choice tracking, NPC state management, localization hooks
- "Progression" implies: XP system, level-up mechanics, skill tree, unlock tracking, progression UI, progression save data
Explain in conversation text why each implicit system is needed (with examples).
Step 2c: User Review
Present the enumeration organized by category. For each system, show:
- Name
- Category
- Brief description (1 sentence)
- Whether it was explicit (from concept) or implicit (inferred)
Then ask the user directly to capture feedback:
- "Are there systems missing from this list?"
- "Should any of these be combined or split?"
- "Are there systems listed that this game does NOT need?"
Iterate until the user approves the enumeration.
Phase 3: Dependency Mapping (Collaborative)
For each system, determine what it depends on. A system "depends on" another if it cannot function without that other system existing first.
Step 3a: Map Dependencies
For each system, list its dependencies. Use these dependency heuristics:
- Input/output dependencies: System A produces data System B needs
- Structural dependencies: System A provides the framework System B plugs into
- UI dependencies: Every gameplay system has a corresponding UI system that depends on it (but UI is designed after the gameplay system)
Step 3b: Sort by Dependency Order
Arrange systems into layers:
- Foundation: Systems with zero dependencies (designed and built first)
- Core: Systems depending only on Foundation systems
- Feature: Systems depending on Core systems
- Presentation: UI and feedback systems that wrap gameplay systems
- Polish: Meta-systems, tutorials, analytics, accessibility
Step 3c: Detect Circular Dependencies
Check for cycles in the dependency graph. If found:
- Highlight them to the user
- Propose resolutions (interface abstraction, simultaneous design, breaking the cycle by defining a contract between the two systems)
Step 3d: Present to User
Show the dependency map as a layered list. Highlight:
- Any circular dependencies
- Any "bottleneck" systems (many others depend on them — these are high-risk)
- Any systems with no dependents (leaf nodes — lower risk, can be designed late)
Ask the user directly to ask: "Does this dependency ordering look right? Any dependencies I'm missing or that should be removed?"
Review mode check — apply before spawning TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY:
solo→ skip. Note: "TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to priority assignment.lean→ skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to priority assignment.full→ spawn as normal.
After dependency mapping is approved, spawn technical-director as a Codex subagent using gate TD-SYSTEM-BOUNDARY (../../docs/director-gates.md) before proceeding to priority assignment.
Pass: the dependency map summary, layer assignments, bottleneck systems list, any circular dependency resolutions.
Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system boundaries with the user before moving to priority assignment. If CONCERNS, note them inline in the systems index and continue.
Phase 4: Priority Assignment (Collaborative)
Assign each system to a priority tier based on what milestone it's needed for.
Step 4a: Auto-Assign Based on Concept
Use these heuristics for initial assignment:
- MVP: Systems mentioned in the concept's "Required for MVP" section, plus their Foundation-layer dependencies
- Vertical Slice: Systems needed for a complete experience in one area
- Alpha: All remaining gameplay systems
- Full Vision: Polish, meta, and nice-to-have systems
Step 4b: User Review
Present the priority assignments in a table. For each tier, explain why systems were placed there.
Ask the user directly to ask: "Do these priority assignments match your vision? Which systems should be higher or lower priority?"
Explain reasoning in conversation: "I placed [system] in MVP because the core loop requires it — without [system], the 30-second loop can't function."
"Why" column guidance: When explaining why each system was placed in a priority tier, mix technical necessity with player-experience reasoning. Do not use purely technical justifications like "Combat needs damage math" — connect to player experience where relevant. Examples of good "Why" entries:
- "Required for the core loop — without it, placement decisions have no consequence (Pillar 2: Placement is the Puzzle)"
- "Ballista's punch-through identity is established here — this stat definition is what makes it feel different from Archer"
- "Foundation for all economy decisions — players must understand upgrade costs to make meaningful placement choices"
Pure technical necessity ("X depends on Y") is insufficient alone when the system directly shapes player experience.
Review mode check — apply before spawning PR-SCOPE:
solo→ skip. Note: "PR-SCOPE skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to writing the systems index.lean→ skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-SCOPE skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to writing the systems index.full→ spawn as normal.
After priorities are approved, spawn producer as a Codex subagent using gate PR-SCOPE (../../docs/director-gates.md) before writing the index.
Pass: total system count per milestone tier, estimated implementation volume per tier (system count × average complexity), team size, stated project timeline.
Present the assessment. If UNREALISTIC, offer to revise priority tier assignments before writing the index. If CONCERNS, note them and continue.
Step 4c: Determine Design Order
Combine dependency sort + priority tier to produce the final design order:
- MVP Foundation systems first
- MVP Core systems second
- MVP Feature systems third
- Vertical Slice Foundation/Core systems
- ...and so on
This is the order the team should write GDDs in.
Phase 5: Create Systems Index (Write)
Step 5a: Draft the Document
Using the template at ../../docs/templates/systems-index.md, populate the
systems index with all data from Phases 2-4:
- Fill the enumeration table
- Fill the dependency map
- Fill the recommended design order
- Fill the high-risk systems
- Fill progress tracker (all systems "Not Started" initially, unless GDDs already exist)
Step 5b: Approval
Present a summary of the document:
- Total systems count by category
- MVP system count
- First 3 systems in the design order
- Any high-risk items
Ask: "May I write the systems index to design/gdd/systems-index.md?"
Wait for approval. Write the file only after "yes."
Review mode check — apply before spawning CD-SYSTEMS:
solo→ skip. Note: "CD-SYSTEMS skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 7 next steps.lean→ skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "CD-SYSTEMS skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 7 next steps.full→ spawn as normal.
After the systems index is written, spawn creative-director as a Codex subagent using gate CD-SYSTEMS (../../docs/director-gates.md).
Pass: systems index path, game pillars and core fantasy (from design/gdd/game-concept.md), MVP priority tier system list.
Present the assessment. If REJECT, revise the system set with the user before GDD authoring begins. If CONCERNS, record them in the systems index as a > **Creative Director Note** at the top of the relevant tier section.
Step 5c: Update Session State
After writing, create production/session-state/active.md if it does not exist, then update it with:
- Task: Systems decomposition
- Status: Systems index created
- File: design/gdd/systems-index.md
- Next: Design individual system GDDs
Verdict: COMPLETE — systems index written to design/gdd/systems-index.md.
If the user declined: Verdict: BLOCKED — user did not approve the write.
Phase 6: Design Individual Systems (Handoff to $design-system)
This phase is entered when:
- The user says "yes" to designing systems after creating the index
- The user invokes
$map-systems [system-name] - The user invokes
$map-systems next
Step 6a: Select the System
- If a system name was provided, find it in the systems index
- If
nextwas used, pick the highest-priority undesigned system (by design order) - If the user just finished the index, ask: "Would you like to start designing individual systems now? The first system in the design order is [name]. Or would you prefer to stop here and come back later?"
Ask the user directly for: "Start designing [system-name] now, pick a different system, or stop here?"
Step 6b: Hand Off to $design-system
Once a system is selected, invoke the $design-system [system-name] skill.
The $design-system skill handles the full GDD authoring process:
- Gathers context from game concept, systems index, and dependency GDDs
- Creates a file skeleton immediately
- Walks through all 8 required sections one at a time (collaborative, incremental)
- Cross-references existing docs to prevent contradictions
- Routes to specialist agents for domain expertise
- Writes each section to file as soon as it's approved
- Runs
$design-reviewwhen complete - Updates the systems index
Do not duplicate the $design-system workflow here. This skill owns the systems
index; $design-system owns individual system GDDs.
Step 6c: Loop or Stop
After $design-system completes, ask the user directly:
- "Continue to the next system ([next system name])?"
- "Pick a different system?"
- "Stop here for this session?"
If continuing, return to Step 6a.
Phase 7: Suggest Next Steps
After the systems index is created (or after designing some systems), present next actions by asking the user directly:
- "Systems index is written. What would you like to do next?"
- [A] Start designing GDDs — run
$design-system [first-system-in-order] - [B] Ask a director to review the index first — ask
creative-directorortechnical-directorto validate the system set before committing to 10+ GDD sessions - [C] Stop here for this session
- [A] Start designing GDDs — run
The director review option ([B]) is worth highlighting: having a Creative Director or Technical Director review the completed systems index before starting GDD authoring catches scope issues, missing systems, and boundary problems before they're locked in across many documents. It is optional but recommended for new projects.
After any individual GDD is completed:
- "Run
$design-review design/gdd/[system].mdin a fresh session to validate quality" - "Run
$gate-check systems-designwhen all MVP GDDs are complete"
Collaborative Protocol
This skill follows the collaborative design principle at every phase:
- Question -> Options -> Decision -> Draft -> Approval at every step
- direct user question at every decision point (Explain -> Capture pattern):
- Phase 2: "Missing systems? Combine or split?"
- Phase 3: "Dependency ordering correct?"
- Phase 4: "Priority assignments match your vision?"
- Phase 5: "May I write the systems index?"
- Phase 6: "Start designing, pick different, or stop?" then hand off to
$design-system
- "May I write to [filepath]?" before every file write
- Incremental writing: Update the systems index after each system is designed
- Handoff: Individual GDD authoring is owned by
$design-system, which handles incremental section writing, cross-referencing, design review, and index updates - Session state updates: Write to
production/session-state/active.mdafter each milestone (index created, system designed, priorities changed)
Never auto-generate the full systems list and write it without review. Never start designing a system without user confirmation. Always show the enumeration, dependencies, and priorities for user validation.
Context Window Awareness
If context reaches or exceeds 70% at any point, append this notice:
Context is approaching the limit (≥70%). The systems index is saved to
design/gdd/systems-index.md. Open a fresh Codex session to continue designing individual GDDs — run$map-systems nextto pick up where you left off.
Recommended Next Steps
- Run
$design-system [first-system-in-order]to author the first GDD (use design order from the index) - Run
$map-systems nextto always pick the highest-priority undesigned system automatically - Run
$design-review design/gdd/[system].mdin a fresh session after each GDD is authored - Run
$gate-check pre-productionwhen all MVP GDDs are authored and reviewed
Other versions15 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 10
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k51% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 9395% same
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 7173% same
- CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 1988% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 895% same
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 569% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 195% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 192% same
- scotidev/GameDevStudio★ 188% same
- venus2099/codex-game-studios★ 151% same
Wrote their own version · 5
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 324same name
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio★ 9same name
- timjrobinson/Claude-Code-Construction-Manager★ 4same name
- ShiningPlague/shiningplague-studio★ 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 repository92 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adoptSkill
- api-cost-gateSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- asset-auditSkill
- asset-specSkill
- balance-checkSkill
- brainstormSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- changelogSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-prdSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- doc-relinkSkill
- estimateSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- governance-bible-initSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- humanize-koreanSkill
- humanize-redoSkill
- humanizeSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- legacy-purgeSkill
- lesson-logSkill
- lesson-reviewSkill
- localizeSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- product-conceptSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- remove-bgSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- self-loopSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

