team-combat
Skill8 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Orchestrate the combat team: coordinates game-designer, gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to design, implement, and validate a combat feature end-to-end.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 8 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
8
Common
Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Argument check: If no combat feature description is provided, output:
- Common: line 12
When this skill is invoked with a valid argument, orchestrate the combat team through a structured pipeline.
- Common: line 30
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
- Distinctive: line 39
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (design doc path, relevant code files, constraints).
- Very specific: line 45
Create or update the design document in design/gdd/ covering: mechanic overview, player fantasy, detailed rules, formulas with variable …
- Common: line 65
technical-artist: Create VFX and shader effects
- Common: line 70
Ensure all tuning knobs are exposed and data-driven
- Common: line 71
Verify the feature works with existing combat systems
- Common: line 75
Write test cases from the acceptance criteria
- Common: line 76
Test all edge cases documented in the design
- Common: line 77
Verify performance impact is within budget
- Distinctive: line 87
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
- Distinctive: line 90
Assess dependencies: Check whether the blocked agent's output is required by subsequent phases.
- Distinctive: line 94
Stop here and resolve the blocker first
- Distinctive: line 105
All file writes (design documents, implementation files, test cases) are delegated to sub-agents spawned via Task.
- Very specific: line 118
Run /code-review on the implemented combat code before closing stories.
- Very specific: line 119
Run /balance-check to validate combat formulas and tuning values.
- Very specific: line 120
Run /team-polish if VFX, audio, or performance polish is needed.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 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
Argument check: If no combat feature description is provided, output:
"Usage:
/team-combat [combat feature description]— Provide a description of the combat feature to design and implement (e.g.,melee parry system,ranged weapon spread)." Then stop immediately without spawning any subagents or reading any files.
When this skill is invoked with a valid argument, orchestrate the combat team through a structured pipeline.
Decision Points: At each phase transition, use AskUserQuestion to present
the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
The user must approve before moving to the next phase.
Team Composition
- game-designer — Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge cases
- gameplay-programmer — Implement the core gameplay code
- ai-programmer — Implement NPC/enemy AI behavior for the feature
- technical-artist — Create VFX, shader effects, and visual feedback
- sound-designer — Define audio events, impact sounds, and ambient combat audio
- engine specialist (primary) — Validate architecture and implementation patterns are idiomatic for the engine (read from
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.mdEngine Specialists section) - qa-tester — Write test cases and validate the implementation
How to Delegate
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
subagent_type: game-designer— Design the mechanic, define formulas and edge casessubagent_type: gameplay-programmer— Implement the core gameplay codesubagent_type: ai-programmer— Implement NPC/enemy AI behaviorsubagent_type: technical-artist— Create VFX, shader effects, visual feedbacksubagent_type: sound-designer— Define audio events, impact sounds, ambient audiosubagent_type: [primary engine specialist]— Engine idiom validation for architecture and implementationsubagent_type: qa-tester— Write test cases and validate implementation
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (design doc path, relevant code files, constraints). Launch independent agents in parallel where the pipeline allows it (e.g., Phase 3 agents can run simultaneously).
Pipeline
Phase 1: Design
Delegate to game-designer:
- Create or update the design document in
design/gdd/covering: mechanic overview, player fantasy, detailed rules, formulas with variable definitions, edge cases, dependencies, tuning knobs with safe ranges, and acceptance criteria - Output: completed design document
Phase 2: Architecture
Delegate to gameplay-programmer (with ai-programmer if AI is involved):
- Review the design document
- Design the code architecture: class structure, interfaces, data flow
- Identify integration points with existing systems
- Output: architecture sketch with file list and interface definitions
Then spawn the primary engine specialist to validate the proposed architecture:
- Is the class/node/component structure idiomatic for the pinned engine? (e.g., Godot node hierarchy, Unity MonoBehaviour vs DOTS, Unreal Actor/Component design)
- Are there engine-native systems that should be used instead of custom implementations?
- Any proposed APIs that are deprecated or changed in the pinned engine version?
- Output: engine architecture notes — incorporate into the architecture before Phase 3 begins
Phase 3: Implementation (parallel where possible)
Delegate in parallel:
- gameplay-programmer: Implement core combat mechanic code
- ai-programmer: Implement AI behaviors (if the feature involves NPC reactions)
- technical-artist: Create VFX and shader effects
- sound-designer: Define audio event list and mixing notes
Phase 4: Integration
- Wire together gameplay code, AI, VFX, and audio
- Ensure all tuning knobs are exposed and data-driven
- Verify the feature works with existing combat systems
Phase 5: Validation
Delegate to qa-tester:
- Write test cases from the acceptance criteria
- Test all edge cases documented in the design
- Verify performance impact is within budget
- File bug reports for any issues found
Phase 6: Sign-off
- Collect results from all team members
- Report feature status: COMPLETE / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED
- List any outstanding issues and their assigned owners
Error Recovery Protocol
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
- Surface immediately: Report "[AgentName]: BLOCKED — [reason]" to the user before continuing to dependent phases
- Assess dependencies: Check whether the blocked agent's output is required by subsequent phases. If yes, do not proceed past that dependency point without user input.
- Offer options via AskUserQuestion with choices:
- Skip this agent and note the gap in the final report
- Retry with narrower scope
- Stop here and resolve the blocker first
- Always produce a partial report — output whatever was completed. Never discard work because one agent blocked.
Common blockers:
- Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
- ADR status is Proposed → do not implement; run
/architecture-decisionfirst - Scope too large → split into two stories via
/create-stories - Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess
File Write Protocol
All file writes (design documents, implementation files, test cases) are delegated to sub-agents spawned via Task. Each sub-agent enforces the "May I write to [path]?" protocol. This orchestrator does not write files directly.
Output
A summary report covering: design completion status, implementation status per team member, test results, and any open issues.
Verdict: COMPLETE — combat feature designed, implemented, and validated. Verdict: BLOCKED — one or more phases could not complete; partial report produced with unresolved items listed.
Next Steps
- Run
/code-reviewon the implemented combat code before closing stories. - Run
/balance-checkto validate combat formulas and tuning values. - Run
/team-polishif VFX, audio, or performance polish is needed.
Other versions13 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 10
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k23% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 9398% same
- CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 1995% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1795% same
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 546% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 184% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 184% same
- scotidev/GameDevStudio★ 195% same
- Swih/godot-foundry★ 192% same
- venus2099/codex-game-studios★ 123% same
Wrote their own version · 3
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 324same name
- CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio★ 9same 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 repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- CCGS Skill Testing Framework/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- design/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docs/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- src/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adoptSkill
- 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-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- skill-testSkill
- smoke-checkSkill
- soak-testSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- startSkill
- story-doneSkill
- 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.

