agentleFS
mewziciansmewzicians/Skills-Folder/skills/game-balance-lab/SKILL.md

game-balance-lab

Skill0 starsChanged 26 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Analyze game balance with rules-faithful simulation, legal policy audits, telemetry, ablations, uncertainty, and human evidence. Use for difficulty, win rates, economies, progression curves, builds, content power, encounters, rewards, or whether a mechanic is too strong or weak.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read repository guidance, references/project-profile.md, current implementation, decision status, and relevant playtest evidence.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Before trusting telemetry, prove automated policies obey legal information, actions, costs, limits, exclusions, timing, randomness, and …

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Don't bend one because a request is casual: ask the user.

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't add a rule after your own mistake or a reviewer's nitpick without that yes.

    line 45
  5. Distinctive:

    Ask about new rules once, batched at the end of the task.

    line 48
  6. Distinctive:

    When a file hits its size cap, or at a milestone, prune it: cut rules no one can tie to a reason.

    line 49

≈ “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.

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

Balance Sim Lab

Read repository guidance, references/project-profile.md, current implementation, decision status, and relevant playtest evidence. Record the exact candidate version and label proposed values as experiments.

Validate The Instrument

Before trusting telemetry, prove automated policies obey legal information, actions, costs, limits, exclusions, timing, randomness, and resolution order, and can actually use every compared strategy. Treat policy-rule mismatch as a blocker, because a policy that breaks the rules measures a different game.

Experiment

Define the question, hypothesis, population, metrics, decision threshold, baseline, and controlled ablations. Prefer paired fixed seeds. Report sample size and uncertainty. Keep human evidence separate from scripted-policy evidence.

Measure the whole curve: success/failure by stage, resources, pacing, recovery, economy, exposure, availability, selection, conversion, survivorship, overkill, remaining power, action burden, and outliers. Find the first decisive deficit or excess, not only the final result.

Guard against rare exposure, policy blindness, survivorship bias, conditional samples, and averaging away exciting high-rolls. Protect distinct option identities and viable tradeoffs.

Report evidence, policy legality, confidence, structural problems, watchpoints, competing explanations, and smallest next experiments. Hard rule: recommendations remain draft until explicitly approved; do not edit values during analysis, because tuned numbers that slip in during analysis get treated as decided.

Rules And Pushback

Lines marked Hard rule guard approvals, deletion, publishing, and private data, where a mistake is costly or can't be undone; each gives its reason. Don't bend one because a request is casual: ask the user. Unmarked lines still bind too. Scope limits, honest evidence, and approval steps aren't optional. Scale each step's effort to the risk, and say so when you skip one that doesn't fit. A profile or instruction file records an owner decision only where it says the owner made it; otherwise treat it as project guidance. If a rule seems wrong for this task, say which one and why before you continue.

How Rules Get Made

  1. Something the user says in passing applies to the current task only.
  2. Exception: anything about money, privacy, publishing, deleting, or permissions binds as soon as they say it. Ask once whether to make it permanent.
  3. A rule becomes standing only when the user says "make this a rule", or you ask and they say yes. Record their words, the date, and the reason with it.
  4. This covers every file that steers an agent: instruction files, style guides, skills, checklists, templates, CI checks, and agent memory.
  5. Don't add a rule after your own mistake or a reviewer's nitpick without that yes. Fix the input or the work instead.
  6. A new ruling replaces the one it contradicts. Never keep both.
  7. Ask about new rules once, batched at the end of the task.
  8. When a file hits its size cap, or at a milestone, prune it: cut rules no one can tie to a reason. The user's taste decisions are flagged for them and never cut by an agent.

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.