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

Skill Test Spec: /team-narrative

Skill Summary

Orchestrates the narrative team through a five-phase pipeline: narrative direction (narrative-director) → world foundation + dialogue drafting (world-builder and writer in parallel) → level narrative integration (level-designer) → consistency review (narrative-director) → polish + localization compliance (writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel). Uses AskUserQuestion at each phase transition to present proposals as selectable options. Produces a narrative summary report and delivers narrative documents via subagents that each enforce the "May I write?" protocol. Verdict is COMPLETE when all phases succeed, or BLOCKED when a dependency is unresolved.

---

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 "File Write Protocol" section
• File writes are delegated to sub-agents — orchestrator does not write files directly
• Sub-agents enforce "May I write to [path]?" before any write
• Has a next-step handoff at the end (references /design-review, /localize extract, /dev-story)
• Error Recovery Protocol section is present
• AskUserQuestion is used at phase transitions before proceeding
• Phase 2 explicitly spawns world-builder and writer in parallel
• Phase 5 explicitly spawns writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel

---

Test Cases

Case 1: Happy Path — All five phases complete, narrative doc delivered

Fixture:

• A game concept and GDD exist for the target feature (e.g., design/gdd/faction-intro.md)
• Character voice profiles exist (e.g., design/narrative/characters/)
• Existing lore entries exist for cross-reference (e.g., design/narrative/lore/)
• No lore contradictions exist between existing entries and the new content

Input: /team-narrative faction introduction cutscene for the Ironveil faction

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 1: narrative-director is spawned; outputs a narrative brief defining the story beat, characters involved, emotional tone, and lore dependencies
2. AskUserQuestion presents the narrative brief; user approves before Phase 2 begins
3. Phase 2: world-builder and writer are spawned in parallel; world-builder produces lore entries for the Ironveil faction; writer drafts dialogue lines using character voice profiles
4. AskUserQuestion presents world foundation and dialogue drafts; user approves before Phase 3 begins
5. Phase 3: level-designer is spawned; produces environmental storytelling layout, trigger placement, and pacing plan
6. AskUserQuestion presents level narrative plan; user approves before Phase 4 begins
7. Phase 4: narrative-director reviews all dialogue against voice profiles, verifies lore consistency, confirms pacing; approves or flags issues
8. AskUserQuestion presents review results; user approves before Phase 5 begins
9. Phase 5: writer, localization-lead, and world-builder are spawned in parallel; writer performs final self-review; localization-lead validates i18n compliance; world-builder finalizes canon levels
10. Final summary report is presented; subagent asks "May I write the narrative document to [path]?" before writing
11. Verdict: COMPLETE

Assertions:

• narrative-director is spawned in Phase 1 before any other agents
• AskUserQuestion appears after Phase 1 output and before Phase 2 launch
• world-builder and writer Task calls are issued simultaneously in Phase 2 (not sequentially)
• level-designer is not launched until Phase 2 AskUserQuestion is approved
• narrative-director is re-spawned in Phase 4 for consistency review
• Phase 5 spawns all three agents (writer, localization-lead, world-builder) simultaneously
• Summary report includes: narrative brief status, lore entries created/updated, dialogue lines written, level narrative integration points, consistency review results
• No files are written by the orchestrator directly
• Verdict is COMPLETE after delivery

---

Case 2: Lore Contradiction Found — world-builder finds conflict before writer proceeds

Fixture:

• Existing lore entry at design/narrative/lore/ironveil-history.md states the Ironveil faction was founded 200 years ago
• The new narrative brief (from Phase 1) states the Ironveil were founded 50 years ago
• The writer has been spawned in parallel with the world-builder in Phase 2

Input: /team-narrative ironveil faction introduction cutscene

Expected behavior:

1. Phases 1–2 begin normally
2. Phase 2 world-builder detects a factual contradiction between the narrative brief and existing lore: founding date conflict
3. world-builder returns BLOCKED with reason: "Lore contradiction found — founding date conflicts with design/narrative/lore/ironveil-history.md"
4. Orchestrator surfaces the contradiction immediately: "world-builder: BLOCKED — Lore contradiction: founding date in narrative brief (50 years ago) conflicts with existing canon (200 years ago in ironveil-history.md)"
5. Orchestrator assesses dependency: the writer's dialogue depends on canon lore — the writer's draft cannot be finalized without resolving the contradiction
6. AskUserQuestion presents options:
   • Revise the narrative brief to match existing canon (200 years ago)
   • Update the existing lore entry to reflect the new canon (50 years ago)
   • Stop here and resolve the contradiction in the lore docs first
7. Writer output is preserved but flagged as pending canon resolution — work is not discarded
8. Orchestrator does NOT proceed to Phase 3 until the contradiction is resolved or user explicitly chooses to skip

Assertions:

• Contradiction is surfaced before Phase 3 begins
• Orchestrator does not silently resolve the contradiction by picking one version
• AskUserQuestion presents at least 3 options including "stop and resolve first"
• Writer's draft output is preserved in the partial report, not discarded
• Phase 3 (level-designer) is not launched until the user resolves the contradiction
• Verdict is BLOCKED (not COMPLETE) if the user stops to resolve the contradiction

---

Case 3: No Argument — Usage guidance shown

Fixture:

• Any project state

Input: /team-narrative (no argument)

Expected behavior:

1. Skill detects no argument is provided
2. Outputs usage guidance: e.g., "Usage: /team-narrative [narrative content description] — describe the story content, scene, or narrative area to work on (e.g., boss encounter cutscene, faction intro dialogue, tutorial narrative)"
3. Skill exits without spawning any agents

Assertions:

• Skill does NOT spawn any agents when no argument is provided
• Usage message includes the correct invocation format with an argument example
• Skill does NOT attempt to guess or infer a narrative topic from project files
• No AskUserQuestion is used — output is direct guidance

---

Case 4: Localization Compliance — localization-lead flags a non-translatable string

Fixture:

• Phases 1–4 complete successfully
• Phase 5 begins; writer and world-builder complete without issues
• localization-lead finds a dialogue line that uses a hardcoded formatted date string (e.g., "On March 12th, Year 3") that cannot survive locale-specific translation without a locale-aware formatter

Input: /team-narrative ironveil faction introduction cutscene (Phase 5 scenario)

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 5 spawns writer, localization-lead, and world-builder in parallel
2. localization-lead completes its review and flags: "String key dialogue.ironveil.intro.003 contains a hardcoded date format (March 12th, Year 3) that will not localize correctly — requires a locale-aware date placeholder"
3. Orchestrator surfaces the localization blocker in the summary report
4. The localization issue is labeled as BLOCKING in the final report (not advisory)
5. AskUserQuestion presents options:
   • Fix the string now (writer revises the line)
   • Note the gap and deliver the narrative doc with the issue flagged
   • Stop and resolve before finalizing
6. If the user chooses to proceed with the issue flagged, verdict is COMPLETE with noted localization debt; if user stops, verdict is BLOCKED

Assertions:

• localization-lead is spawned in Phase 5 simultaneously with writer and world-builder
• Hardcoded date format is identified as a localization blocker (not silently passed)
• The specific string key and reason are included in the issue report
• AskUserQuestion offers the option to fix now vs. flag and proceed
• Verdict notes the localization debt if the user proceeds without fixing
• Skill does NOT automatically rewrite the offending line without user approval

---

Case 5: Writer Blocked — Missing character voice profiles

Fixture:

• Phase 1 narrative-director produces a narrative brief referencing two characters: Commander Varek and Advisor Selene
• No character voice profiles exist in design/narrative/characters/ for either character
• Phase 2 begins; world-builder proceeds normally

Input: /team-narrative ironveil surrender negotiation scene

Expected behavior:

1. Phase 1 completes; narrative brief lists Commander Varek and Advisor Selene as characters
2. Phase 2: writer is spawned in parallel with world-builder
3. writer returns BLOCKED: "Cannot produce dialogue — no voice profiles found for Commander Varek or Advisor Selene in design/narrative/characters/. Voice profiles required to match character tone and speech patterns."
4. Orchestrator surfaces the blocker immediately: "writer: BLOCKED — Missing prerequisite: character voice profiles for Commander Varek and Advisor Selene"
5. world-builder output is preserved; partial report is produced with lore entries
6. AskUserQuestion presents options:
   • Create voice profiles first (redirects to the narrative-director or design workflow)
   • Provide minimal voice direction inline and retry the writer with that context
   • Stop here and create voice profiles before proceeding
7. Orchestrator does NOT proceed to Phase 3 (level-designer) without writer output

Assertions:

• Writer block is surfaced before Phase 3 begins
• world-builder's completed lore output is preserved in the partial report
• Missing prerequisite (voice profiles) is named specifically (character names and expected file path)
• AskUserQuestion offers at least one option to resolve the missing prerequisite
• Orchestrator does not fabricate voice profiles or invent character voices
• Phase 3 is not launched while writer is BLOCKED without explicit user authorization

---

Protocol Compliance

• AskUserQuestion is used after every phase output before the next phase launches
• Parallel spawning: Phase 2 (world-builder + writer) and Phase 5 (writer + localization-lead + world-builder) issue all Task calls before waiting for results
• No files are written by the orchestrator directly — all writes are delegated to sub-agents
• Each sub-agent enforces the "May I write to [path]?" protocol before any write
• BLOCKED status from any agent is surfaced immediately — not silently skipped
• A partial report is always produced when some agents complete and others block
• Verdict is exactly COMPLETE or BLOCKED — no other verdict values used
• Next Steps handoff references /design-review, /localize extract, and /dev-story

---

Coverage Notes

• Phase 3 (level-designer) and Phase 4 (narrative-director review) happy-path behavior are validated implicitly by Case 1. Separate edge cases are not needed for these phases as their failure modes follow the standard Error Recovery Protocol.
• The "Retry with narrower scope" and "Skip this agent" resolution paths from the Error Recovery Protocol are not separately tested — they follow the same AskUserQuestion
  • partial-report pattern validated in Cases 2 and 5.
• Localization concerns that are advisory (e.g., German/Finnish +30% expansion warnings) vs. blocking (hardcoded formats) are distinguished in Case 4; advisory-only scenarios follow the same pattern but do not change the verdict.
• The writer's "all lines under 120 characters" and "string keys not raw strings" checks in Phase 5 are covered implicitly by Case 4's localization compliance scenario.