pixelheros/CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/team/team-level.md

Skill Test Spec: /team-level

Skill Summary

Orchestrates the full level design team for a single level or area. Coordinates narrative-director, world-builder, level-designer, systems-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist, and qa-tester through five sequential steps with one parallel phase (Step 4). Compiles all team outputs into a single level design document saved to design/levels/[level-name].md. Uses AskUserQuestion at each step transition. Delegates all file writes to sub-agents. Produces a summary report with verdict COMPLETE / BLOCKED and handoffs to /design-review, /dev-story, /qa-plan.

---

Static Assertions (Structural)

• Has required frontmatter fields: name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools
• Has ≥2 phase/step headings (Step 1 through Step 5 are all present)
• Contains verdict keywords: COMPLETE, BLOCKED
• Contains "May I write" or "File Write Protocol" — writes delegated to sub-agents, orchestrator does not write files directly
• Has a next-step handoff at the end (references /design-review, /dev-story, /qa-plan)
• Error Recovery Protocol section is present with all four recovery steps
• Uses AskUserQuestion at step transitions for user approval before proceeding
• Step 4 is explicitly marked as parallel (art-director and accessibility-specialist run simultaneously)
• Context gathering reads: design/gdd/game-concept.md, design/gdd/game-pillars.md, design/levels/, design/narrative/, and relevant world-building docs
• Team Composition lists all seven roles (narrative-director, world-builder, level-designer, systems-designer, art-director, accessibility-specialist, qa-tester)
• accessibility-specialist output includes severity ratings (BLOCKING / RECOMMENDED / NICE TO HAVE)
• Final level design document saved to design/levels/[level-name].md

---

Test Cases

Case 1: Happy Path — All team members produce outputs, document compiled and saved

Fixture:

• design/gdd/game-concept.md exists and is populated
• design/gdd/game-pillars.md exists
• design/levels/ directory exists (may contain other level docs)
• design/narrative/ directory exists with relevant narrative docs

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Context gathering — orchestrator reads game-concept.md, game-pillars.md, existing level docs in design/levels/, narrative docs in design/narrative/, and world-building docs for the forest region
2. Step 1 — narrative-director spawned: defines narrative purpose, key characters, dialogue triggers, emotional arc; world-builder spawned: provides lore context, environmental storytelling opportunities, world rules; AskUserQuestion confirms Step 1 outputs before Step 2
3. Step 2 — level-designer spawned: designs spatial layout (critical path, optional paths, secrets), pacing curve, encounters, puzzles, entry/exit points and connections to adjacent areas; AskUserQuestion confirms layout before Step 3
4. Step 3 — systems-designer spawned: specifies enemy compositions, loot tables, difficulty balance, area-specific mechanics, resource distribution; AskUserQuestion confirms systems before Step 4
5. Step 4 — art-director and accessibility-specialist spawned in parallel; art-director: visual theme, color palette, lighting, asset list, VFX needs; accessibility-specialist: navigation clarity, colorblind safety, cognitive load check — each concern rated BLOCKING / RECOMMENDED / NICE TO HAVE; AskUserQuestion presents both outputs before Step 5
6. Step 5 — qa-tester spawned: test cases for critical path, boundary/edge cases (sequence breaks, softlocks), playtest checklist, acceptance criteria
7. Orchestrator compiles all team outputs into level design document format; sub-agent asked "May I write to design/levels/forest-dungeon.md?"; file saved
8. Summary report: area overview, encounter count, estimated asset list, narrative beats, cross-team dependencies, verdict: COMPLETE
9. Next steps listed: /design-review design/levels/forest-dungeon.md, /dev-story, /qa-plan

Assertions:

• All five sources read during context gathering before any agent is spawned
• narrative-director and world-builder both spawned in Step 1 (may be sequential or parallel — both must complete before Step 2)
• AskUserQuestion called at each step gate (minimum: after Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, Step 4)
• Step 4 agents (art-director, accessibility-specialist) launched simultaneously
• All file writes delegated to sub-agents — orchestrator does not write directly
• Level doc saved to design/levels/forest-dungeon.md (slugified from argument)
• Verdict COMPLETE in final summary report
• Next steps include /design-review, /dev-story, /qa-plan
• Summary report includes: area overview, encounter count, estimated asset list, narrative beats

---

Case 2: Blocked Agent (world-builder) — Partial report produced with gap noted

Fixture:

• design/gdd/game-concept.md exists
• World-building docs for the forest region do NOT exist
• world-builder agent returns BLOCKED: "No world-building docs found for the forest region — cannot provide lore context"

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Context gathering completes; missing world-building docs noted
2. Step 1 — narrative-director completes successfully; world-builder spawned and returns BLOCKED
3. Error Recovery Protocol triggered: "world-builder: BLOCKED — no world-building docs for forest region"
4. AskUserQuestion presented with options:
   • (a) Skip world-builder and note the lore gap in the level doc
   • (b) Retry with narrower scope (world-builder focuses only on what can be inferred from game-concept.md)
   • (c) Stop here and create world-building docs first
5. If user chooses (a): pipeline continues with Steps 2–5 using narrative-director context only; level doc compiled with a clearly marked gap section: "World-building context: NOT PROVIDED — see open dependency"
6. Final report produced: partial outputs documented, world-builder section marked BLOCKED, overall verdict: BLOCKED

Assertions:

• BLOCKED surface message appears immediately when world-builder fails — before Step 2 begins without user input
• AskUserQuestion offers at minimum three options (skip / retry / stop)
• Partial report produced — narrative-director's completed work is not discarded
• Level doc (if compiled) contains an explicit gap notation for the missing world-building context
• Overall verdict is BLOCKED (not COMPLETE) when world-builder remains unresolved
• Skill does NOT silently fabricate lore content to fill the gap

---

Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown

Fixture:

• Any project state

Input: /team-level (no argument)

Expected behavior:

1. Skill detects no argument provided
2. Outputs usage message explaining the required argument (level name or area to design)
3. Provides example invocations: /team-level tutorial, /team-level forest dungeon, /team-level final boss arena
4. Skill exits without reading any project files or spawning any subagents

Assertions:

• Skill does NOT spawn any subagents when no argument is given
• Usage message includes the argument-hint format from frontmatter
• At least one example of a valid invocation is shown
• No GDD or level files read before failing
• Verdict is NOT shown (pipeline never starts)

---

Case 4: Accessibility Review Gate — Blocking concern surfaces before sign-off

Fixture:

• Steps 1–3 complete successfully
• design/accessibility-requirements.md committed tier: Enhanced
• accessibility-specialist (Step 4, parallel) flags a BLOCKING concern: the critical path through the forest dungeon requires players to distinguish between two environmental hazards (toxic pools vs. shallow water) using color alone — no shape, icon, or audio cue differentiates them

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Steps 1–3 complete; Step 4 parallel phase begins
2. accessibility-specialist returns: BLOCKING concern — "Critical path hazard distinction relies on color only (toxic pools vs. shallow water). Shape, icon, or audio cue required per Enhanced accessibility tier."
3. art-director returns Step 4 output (complete)
4. Skill presents both Step 4 results via AskUserQuestion — BLOCKING concern highlighted prominently
5. AskUserQuestion offers:
   • (a) Return to level-designer + art-director to redesign hazard visual/audio language before Step 5
   • (b) Document as a known accessibility gap and proceed to Step 5 with the concern logged
6. Skill does NOT silently proceed past the BLOCKING concern
7. If user chooses (a): level-designer and art-director revision spawned; re-run Step 4 accessibility check
8. Final report includes BLOCKING concern and its resolution status regardless of user choice

Assertions:

• BLOCKING accessibility concern is not treated as advisory — it is surfaced as a blocker
• AskUserQuestion presents the specific concern text (not just "accessibility issue found")
• Step 5 (qa-tester) does NOT begin without user acknowledging the BLOCKING concern
• Revision path offered: level-designer + art-director can be sent back before proceeding
• Final report includes the accessibility concern and its resolution status
• art-director's completed output is NOT discarded when accessibility-specialist blocks

---

Case 5: Circular Level Reference — Adjacent area dependency flagged

Fixture:

• Steps 1–3 in progress
• level-designer (Step 2) produces a layout that specifies entry/exit points connecting to "the crystal caves" (an adjacent area)
• design/levels/crystal-caves.md does NOT exist — the crystal caves area has not been designed yet

Input: /team-level forest dungeon

Expected behavior:

1. Step 2 — level-designer produces layout including: "West exit connects to crystal-caves entry point A"
2. Orchestrator (or level-designer subagent) checks design/levels/ for crystal-caves.md; file not found
3. Dependency gap surfaced: "Level references crystal-caves as an adjacent area but design/levels/crystal-caves.md does not exist"
4. AskUserQuestion presented with options:
   • (a) Proceed with a placeholder reference — note the dependency in the level doc as UNRESOLVED
   • (b) Pause and run /team-level crystal caves first to establish that area
5. Skill does NOT invent crystal caves content to satisfy the reference
6. If user chooses (a): level doc compiled with the west exit marked "→ crystal-caves (UNRESOLVED — area not yet designed)"; flagged in the open dependencies section of the summary report
7. Final report includes open cross-level dependencies section

Assertions:

• Skill detects the missing adjacent area by checking design/levels/ — does not assume it will be created later
• Skill does NOT fabricate crystal caves content (lore, layout, connections) to resolve the reference
• AskUserQuestion offers a "design crystal caves first" option referencing /team-level
• If user proceeds with placeholder, level doc explicitly marks the west exit as UNRESOLVED
• Summary report includes an open cross-level dependencies section listing unresolved references
• Circular or forward references do not cause the skill to loop or crash

---

Protocol Compliance

• AskUserQuestion used at each step transition — user approves before pipeline advances
• All file writes delegated to sub-agents via Task — orchestrator does not call Write or Edit directly
• Error Recovery Protocol followed: surface → assess → offer options → partial report
• Step 4 agents (art-director, accessibility-specialist) launched in parallel per skill spec
• Partial report always produced even when agents are BLOCKED
• Accessibility BLOCKING concerns surface before sign-off and require explicit user acknowledgment
• Verdict is one of COMPLETE / BLOCKED
• Next steps present at end: /design-review, /dev-story, /qa-plan

---

Coverage Notes

• narrative-director and world-builder in Step 1 may be sequential or parallel — the skill spec spawns both but does not mandate simultaneous launch; coverage of parallel Step 1 would require an explicit timing assertion fixture.
• The "Retry with narrower scope" option in the blocked world-builder case (Case 2) — the retry behavior itself is not tested in depth; its full path is analogous to the blocked agent pattern covered in Case 2 and in other team-* specs.
• systems-designer (Step 3) block scenarios are not separately tested; the same Error Recovery Protocol applies and the pattern is validated by Case 2.
• Step 4 parallel ordering (art-director completing before or after accessibility-specialist) does not affect outcomes — both must return before Step 5 regardless of order.
• The level doc slug convention (argument → filename) is implicitly tested by Case 1 (forest dungeon → forest-dungeon.md); multi-word slugification edge cases (special characters, very long names) are not covered.