# Agent Test Spec: art-director ## Agent Summary **Domain owned:** Visual identity, art bible authorship and enforcement, asset quality standards, UI/UX visual design, visual phase gate, concept art evaluation. **Does NOT own:** UX interaction flows and information architecture (ux-designer's domain), audio direction (audio-director), code implementation. **Model tier:** Sonnet (note: despite the "director" title, art-director is assigned Sonnet per coordination-rules.md — it handles individual system analysis, not multi-document phase gate synthesis at the Opus level). **Gate IDs handled:** AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL, AD-ART-BIBLE, AD-PHASE-GATE. --- ## Static Assertions (Structural) Verified by reading the agent's `.claude/agents/art-director.md` frontmatter: - [ ] `description:` field is present and domain-specific (references visual identity, art bible, asset standards — not generic) - [ ] `allowed-tools:` list is read-focused; image review capability if supported; no Bash unless asset pipeline checks are justified - [ ] Model tier is `claude-sonnet-4-6` (NOT Opus — coordination-rules.md assigns Sonnet to art-director) - [ ] Agent definition does not claim authority over UX interaction flows or audio direction --- ## Test Cases ### Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output format **Scenario:** The art bible's color palette section is submitted for review. The section defines a desaturated earth-tone primary palette with high-contrast accent colors tied to the game pillar "beauty in decay." The palette is internally consistent and references the pillar vocabulary. Request is tagged AD-ART-BIBLE. **Expected:** Returns `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE` with rationale confirming the palette's internal consistency and its alignment with the stated pillar. **Assertions:** - [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT - [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE` - [ ] Rationale references the specific palette characteristics and pillar alignment — not generic art advice - [ ] Output stays within visual domain — does not comment on UX interaction patterns or audio mood ### Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects or escalates **Scenario:** Sound designer asks art-director to specify how ambient audio should layer and duck when the player enters a combat zone. **Expected:** Agent declines to define audio behavior and redirects to audio-director. **Assertions:** - [ ] Does not make any binding decision about audio layering or ducking behavior - [ ] Explicitly names `audio-director` as the correct handler - [ ] May note if the audio has visual mood implications (e.g., "the audio should match the visual tension of the zone"), but defers all audio specification to audio-director ### Case 3: Gate verdict — correct vocabulary **Scenario:** Concept art for the protagonist is submitted. The art uses a vivid, saturated color palette (primary: #FF4500, #00BFFF) that directly contradicts the established art bible's "desaturated earth-tones" palette specification. Request is tagged AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL. **Expected:** Returns `AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS` with specific citation of the palette discrepancy, referencing the art bible's stated palette values versus the submitted concept's palette. **Assertions:** - [ ] Verdict is exactly one of APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT — not freeform text - [ ] Verdict token is formatted as `AD-CONCEPT-VISUAL: CONCERNS` - [ ] Rationale specifically identifies the palette conflict — not a generic "doesn't match style" comment - [ ] References the art bible as the authoritative source for the correct palette ### Case 4: Conflict escalation — correct parent **Scenario:** ux-designer proposes using high-contrast, brightly colored icons for the HUD to improve readability. art-director believes this violates the art bible's muted visual language and would undermine the visual identity. **Expected:** art-director states the visual identity concern and references the art bible, acknowledges ux-designer's readability goal as legitimate, and escalates to creative-director to arbitrate the trade-off between visual coherence and usability. **Assertions:** - [ ] Escalates to `creative-director` (shared parent for creative domain conflicts) - [ ] Does not unilaterally override ux-designer's readability recommendation - [ ] Clearly frames the conflict as a trade-off between two legitimate goals - [ ] References the specific art bible rule being violated ### Case 5: Context pass — uses provided context **Scenario:** Agent receives a gate context block that includes the existing art bible with specific palette values (primary: #8B7355, #6B6B47; accent: #C8A96E) and style rules ("no pure white, no pure black; all shadows have warm undertones"). A new asset is submitted for review. **Expected:** Assessment references the specific hex values and style rules from the provided art bible, not generic color theory advice. Any concerns are tied to specific violations of the provided rules. **Assertions:** - [ ] References specific palette values from the provided art bible context - [ ] Applies the specific style rules (no pure white/black, warm shadow undertones) from the provided document - [ ] Does not generate generic art direction feedback disconnected from the supplied art bible - [ ] Verdict rationale is traceable to specific lines or rules in the provided context --- ## Protocol Compliance - [ ] Returns verdicts using APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT vocabulary only - [ ] Stays within declared visual domain - [ ] Escalates UX-vs-visual conflicts to creative-director - [ ] Uses gate IDs in output (e.g., `AD-ART-BIBLE: APPROVE`) not inline prose verdicts - [ ] Does not make binding UX interaction, audio, or code implementation decisions --- ## Coverage Notes - AD-PHASE-GATE (full visual phase advancement) is not covered — deferred to integration with /gate-check skill. - Asset pipeline standards (file format, resolution, naming conventions) compliance checks are not covered here. - Shader visual output review is not covered — that interaction with the engine specialist is deferred. - UI component visual review (as distinct from UX flow review) could benefit from additional cases.