playtesting
Skill0 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Playtesting methodology and iteration planning for games. Use when planning playtests, defining test criteria, setting up feedback loops, deciding when to pivot or persevere, or structuring build-test-learn cycles. Covers observation techniques, minimum viable playtests, iteration cadence, pivot decisions.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DECRUX9812/hermes-plugin-gameforgetheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- poorvith-mp/skills-gamedevtheir own version, first seen Aug 19, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- DECRUX9812/hermes-plugin-gameforge★ 44same name
- poorvith-mp/skills-gamedev★ 4same 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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- antipatternsSkill
- architecture-auditSkill
- ascii-wireframingSkill
- content-planningSkill
- design-frameworksSkill
- difficulty-designSkill
- economy-designSkill
- implementationSkill
- mechanics-paletteSkill
- plan-auditSkill
- scenario-walkthroughSkill
- scopingSkill
- simulation-guideSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Test early, test often. No design decision survives first contact with a playtester.
- Distinctive: line 25
After every playtest, evaluate these three questions:
- Distinctive: line 49
Timeline test: If you can't produce an MVPt within one week, your scope is too large.
≈ “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
Playtesting & Iteration
Test early, test often. No design decision survives first contact with a playtester.
Quick Reference
Playtest Type Selection
| Type | Tester | What It Validates | When to Use |
| Self-test | You | Basic functionality, obvious breaks | Every build |
| Friend test | Someone who knows you | Core loop fun, clarity of mechanics | After tracer bullet works |
| Stranger test | Someone with no context | Onboarding, first impression, intuitiveness | After friend test passes |
| Group test | 3-5 strangers simultaneously | Consistency, edge cases, varied play styles | Before calling MLP "done" |
Rule: Self-testing finds bugs. Friend-testing finds confusion. Stranger-testing finds the truth.
The 3-Question Framework
After every playtest, evaluate these three questions:
| Question | If No → | Fix Category |
| Did they understand? | Onboarding problem | Clarity: UI, feedback, tutorial (see design-frameworks → Game Feel, Juice & Onboarding) |
| Did they want to keep going? | Core loop problem | Fun: mechanics, pacing, reward (see design-frameworks → Core Loop Design) |
| Did they want to come back? | Retention problem | Hook: progression, curiosity, mastery |
Priority order: Understanding → Engagement → Retention. Don't fix retention if players aren't engaged. Don't fix engagement if players are confused.
Playtest Planning Checklist
- Name 3 specific people who will test
- Date for first playtest scheduled
- One specific question this playtest answers (e.g., "Is the jump mechanic intuitive?")
- Observation method chosen (watch silently, record screen, take notes)
- Pivot criteria defined ("If X happens, we change Y")
Minimum Viable Playtest (MVPt)
The smallest build that can answer "is this fun?"
Requirements: Core loop completes one full cycle (action → reward → reinvestment), player can fail and try again, programmer art is fine, no menus/saves/settings needed, runs 5+ minutes without crashing.
Timeline test: If you can't produce an MVPt within one week, your scope is too large.
Observation vs Asking
What players DO is more reliable than what they SAY.
| Observe | Don't Ask |
| Where they get stuck | "Was it confusing?" |
| What they skip or ignore | "Did you notice the tutorial?" |
| When they lean forward | "Was it fun?" |
| When they check their phone | "Were you bored?" |
| What they try that isn't possible | "What features do you want?" |
After the playtest, ask open-ended questions: "What were you trying to do when [observed moment]?", "Walk me through what you were thinking during [section]", "What would you do next if you kept playing?"
Never ask: "Was it fun?" "Did you like it?" — these produce polite lies.
Iteration Cadence
Build → Test → Learn cycle: Build (1-3 days) → Test (1 session) → Learn (same day) → repeat.
Cadence targets: MLP phase: test every 3-5 days. Fun polish: test after every significant change. Content: test each batch before making more.
Red flags: >2 weeks since last playtest (too rare). Testing every day (not enough change). Only testing when "ready" (it's never ready).
Pivot vs Persevere
| Signal | Action |
| Core mechanic not fun after 3+ tests | Pivot — change the core mechanic |
| Fun in short bursts, boring over time | Iterate — add variation, adjust pacing |
| Fun when explained, confusing without help | Iterate — improve onboarding |
| Tester engaged but frustrated by specific part | Iterate — adjust that area |
When in doubt: More testing, not more building. One playtest costs an hour; one feature costs a week.
Session Structure
RITE Method (Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation): Fix problems immediately after each participant, verify with the next. 3-4 iteration + 6 verification participants = robust usability.
Four phases: Briefing (2-5 min, explain what you're testing, not how to play) → Play session (15-60 min, observe silently) → Debrief (10-15 min, questionnaire first, then open-ended follow-up) → Post-session (15-30 min, team reviews top 3 issues).
Sample sizes: Usability: 5 minimum (finds ~80% of major issues). Core loop validation: 5-10. Counting rule: 3/5 testers hit same issue → pattern worth fixing.
FFWWDD Framework: Six open-ended debrief questions — Frustrating, Favorite, Wanted, Wand, Doing, Describe. (see plan-audit/questionnaires.md for full question list and analysis tips)
See Also
- scoping — Post-MLP iteration phases
(see scoping → Post-MLP Iteration Phases) - antipatterns — Design in Isolation is the #1 anti-pattern playtesting prevents
(see antipatterns) - design-frameworks — Onboarding patterns for fixing "didn't understand" results
(see design-frameworks → Game Feel, Juice & Onboarding) - economy-design — What to playtest for economy balance
(see economy-design) - scenario-walkthrough — Walkthrough as a testable artifact to compare against real play
(see scenario-walkthrough → The 5-Beat Structure) - difficulty-design — Testing for difficulty fairness, developer blind spot
(see difficulty-design) - content-planning — Content batching and playtest cadence
(see content-planning) - plan-audit — Playtest readiness audit and questionnaire frameworks
(see plan-audit) - architecture-audit — Code architecture audit for technical playtest blockers
(see architecture-audit)
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.

