添加 claude code game studios 到项目
This commit is contained in:
panw
178
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/team/team-live-ops.md
Normal file
178
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/team/team-live-ops.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
|
||||
# Skill Test Spec: /team-live-ops
|
||||
|
||||
## Skill Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Orchestrates the live-ops team through a 7-phase planning pipeline to produce a
|
||||
season or event plan. Coordinates live-ops-designer, economy-designer,
|
||||
analytics-engineer, community-manager, narrative-director, and writer. Phases 3
|
||||
and 4 (economy design and analytics) run simultaneously. Ends with a consolidated
|
||||
season plan requiring user approval before handoff to production.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Assertions (Structural)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Has required frontmatter fields: `name`, `description`, `argument-hint`, `user-invocable`, `allowed-tools`
|
||||
- [ ] Has ≥2 phase headings
|
||||
- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
|
||||
- [ ] Contains "May I write" language in the File Write Protocol section (delegated to sub-agents)
|
||||
- [ ] Has a File Write Protocol section stating that the orchestrator does not write files directly
|
||||
- [ ] Has a next-step handoff at the end referencing `/design-review`, `/sprint-plan`, and `/team-release`
|
||||
- [ ] Uses `AskUserQuestion` at phase transitions to capture user approval before proceeding
|
||||
- [ ] States explicitly that Phases 3 and 4 can run simultaneously (parallel spawning)
|
||||
- [ ] Error recovery section present (or implied through BLOCKED handling)
|
||||
- [ ] Output documents section specifies paths under `design/live-ops/seasons/`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 1: Happy Path — All 7 phases complete, season plan produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `design/live-ops/economy-rules.md` exists with current economy configuration
|
||||
- `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md` exists with the project ethics policy
|
||||
- Game concept document exists at its standard path
|
||||
- No existing season documents for the new season name being planned
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/team-live-ops "Season 2: The Frozen Wastes"`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Phase 1: Spawns `live-ops-designer` via Task; receives season brief with scope, content list, and retention mechanic; presents to user
|
||||
2. AskUserQuestion: user approves Phase 1 output before Phase 2 begins
|
||||
3. Phase 2: Spawns `narrative-director` via Task; reads the Phase 1 season brief; produces narrative framing document (theme, story hook, lore connections); presents to user
|
||||
4. Phase 3 and 4 (parallel): Spawns `economy-designer` and `analytics-engineer` simultaneously via two Task calls before waiting for either result; economy-designer reads `design/live-ops/economy-rules.md`
|
||||
5. Phase 5: Spawns `narrative-director` and `writer` in parallel to produce in-game narrative text and player-facing copy; both read Phase 2 narrative framing doc
|
||||
6. Phase 6: Spawns `community-manager` via Task; reads season brief, economy design, and narrative framing; produces communication calendar with draft copy
|
||||
7. Phase 7: Collects all phase outputs; presents consolidated season plan summary including economy health check, analytics readiness, ethics review, and open questions
|
||||
8. AskUserQuestion: user approves the full season plan
|
||||
9. Sub-agents ask "May I write to `design/live-ops/seasons/S2_The_Frozen_Wastes.md`?", `...analytics.md`, and `...comms.md` before writing
|
||||
10. Verdict: COMPLETE — season plan produced and handed off for production
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 phases execute in order; Phase 3 and 4 are issued as parallel Task calls
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 7 consolidated summary includes all six sections (season brief, narrative framing, economy design, analytics plan, content inventory, communication calendar)
|
||||
- [ ] Ethics review section in Phase 7 explicitly references `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md`
|
||||
- [ ] Three output documents written to `design/live-ops/seasons/` with correct naming convention
|
||||
- [ ] File writes are delegated to sub-agents — orchestrator does not write directly
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict: COMPLETE appears in final output
|
||||
- [ ] Next steps reference `/design-review`, `/sprint-plan`, and `/team-release`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 2: Ethics Violation Found — Reward element violates ethics policy
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- All standard live-ops fixtures present (economy-rules.md, ethics-policy.md)
|
||||
- `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md` explicitly prohibits loot boxes targeting players under 18
|
||||
- economy-designer (Phase 3) proposes a "Mystery Chest" mechanic with randomized premium rewards and no pity timer
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/team-live-ops "Season 3: Shadow Tournament"`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Phases 1–4 proceed normally; economy-designer proposes Mystery Chest mechanic
|
||||
2. Phase 7: Orchestrator reviews Phase 3 output against ethics policy; identifies Mystery Chest as a violation of the "no untransparent random premium rewards" rule in the ethics policy
|
||||
3. Ethics review section of the Phase 7 summary flags the violation explicitly: "ETHICS FLAG: Mystery Chest mechanic in Phase 3 economy design violates [policy rule]. Approval is blocked until this is resolved."
|
||||
4. AskUserQuestion presented with resolution options before season plan approval is offered
|
||||
5. Skill does NOT issue a COMPLETE verdict or write output documents until the ethics violation is resolved or explicitly waived by the user
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 7 ethics review section explicitly names the violating element and the policy rule it breaks
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does not auto-approve the season plan when an ethics violation is present
|
||||
- [ ] AskUserQuestion is used to surface the violation and offer resolution options (revise economy design, override with documented rationale, cancel)
|
||||
- [ ] Output documents are NOT written while the violation is unresolved
|
||||
- [ ] If user chooses to revise: skill re-spawns economy-designer to produce a corrected design before returning to Phase 7 review
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict: COMPLETE is only issued after the ethics flag is cleared
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- Any project state
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/team-live-ops` (no argument)
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Phase 1: No argument detected
|
||||
2. Outputs: "Usage: `/team-live-ops [season name or event description]` — Provide the name or description of the season or live event to plan."
|
||||
3. Skill exits immediately without spawning any subagents
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT guess a season name or fabricate a scope
|
||||
- [ ] Error message includes the correct usage format with the argument-hint
|
||||
- [ ] No Task calls are issued before the argument check fails
|
||||
- [ ] No files are read or written
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 4: Parallel Phase Validation — Phases 3 and 4 run simultaneously
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- All standard live-ops fixtures present
|
||||
- Phase 1 (season brief) and Phase 2 (narrative framing) already approved
|
||||
- Phase 3 (economy-designer) and Phase 4 (analytics-engineer) inputs are independent of each other
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/team-live-ops "Season 1: The First Thaw"` (observed at Phase 3/4 transition)
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. After Phase 2 is approved by the user, the orchestrator issues both Task calls (economy-designer and analytics-engineer) before awaiting either result
|
||||
2. Both agents receive the season brief as context; analytics-engineer does NOT wait for economy-designer output to begin
|
||||
3. Economy-designer output and analytics-engineer output are collected together before Phase 5 begins
|
||||
4. If one of the two parallel agents blocks, the other continues; a partial result is reported
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Both Task calls for Phase 3 and Phase 4 are issued before either result is awaited — they are not sequential
|
||||
- [ ] Analytics-engineer prompt does NOT include economy-designer output as a required input (the inputs are independent)
|
||||
- [ ] If economy-designer blocks but analytics-engineer succeeds, analytics output is preserved and the block is surfaced via AskUserQuestion
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 5 does not begin until BOTH Phase 3 and Phase 4 results are collected
|
||||
- [ ] Skill documentation explicitly states "Phases 3 and 4 can run simultaneously"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 5: Missing Ethics Policy — `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md` does not exist
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `design/live-ops/economy-rules.md` exists
|
||||
- `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md` does NOT exist
|
||||
- All other fixtures are present
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/team-live-ops "Season 4: Desert Heat"`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Phases 1–4 proceed; economy-designer and analytics-engineer are given the ethics policy path but it is absent
|
||||
2. Phase 7: Orchestrator attempts to run ethics review; detects that `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md` is missing
|
||||
3. Phase 7 summary includes a gap flag: "ETHICS REVIEW SKIPPED: `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md` not found. Economy design was not reviewed against an ethics policy. Recommend creating one before production begins."
|
||||
4. Skill still completes the season plan and reaches COMPLETE verdict, but the gap is prominently flagged in the output and in the season design document
|
||||
5. Next steps include a recommendation to create the ethics policy document
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT error out when the ethics policy file is missing
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does NOT fabricate ethics policy rules in the absence of the file
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 7 summary explicitly notes that ethics review was skipped and why
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict: COMPLETE is still reachable despite the missing file
|
||||
- [ ] Gap flag appears in the season design output document (not just in conversation)
|
||||
- [ ] Next steps recommend creating `design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Protocol Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] `AskUserQuestion` used at every phase transition — user approves before the next phase begins
|
||||
- [ ] Phases 3 and 4 are always spawned in parallel, not sequentially
|
||||
- [ ] File Write Protocol: orchestrator never calls Write/Edit directly — all writes are delegated to sub-agents
|
||||
- [ ] Each output document gets its own "May I write to [path]?" ask from the relevant sub-agent
|
||||
- [ ] Ethics review in Phase 7 always references the ethics policy file path explicitly
|
||||
- [ ] Error recovery: any BLOCKED agent is surfaced immediately with AskUserQuestion options (skip / retry / stop)
|
||||
- [ ] Partial reports are produced if any phase blocks — work is never discarded
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict: COMPLETE only after user approves the consolidated season plan; BLOCKED if any unresolved ethics violation exists
|
||||
- [ ] Next steps always include `/design-review`, `/sprint-plan`, and `/team-release`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Phase 5 parallel spawning (narrative-director + writer) follows the same pattern as Phases 3/4 but is not separately tested here — it uses the same parallel Task protocol validated in Case 4.
|
||||
- The "economy-rules.md absent" edge case is not separately tested — it would surface as a BLOCKED result from economy-designer and follow the standard error recovery path tested implicitly in Case 4.
|
||||
- The full content writing pipeline (Phase 5 output validation) is validated implicitly by the Case 1 happy path consolidated summary check.
|
||||
- Community manager communication calendar format (pre-launch, launch day, mid-season, final week) is validated implicitly by Case 1; no separate edge case is needed.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user