--- name: game-studio-harness description: >- Five-role game production studio harness: director, numeric-balance designer, revenue-band PM, verification-strict programmer, archetype-rotation QA. Runs the 3-stage operating cycle (concept/presentation/core build → balance/core-loop/novelty → ops stability/play impact) behind 8 numeric quality gates with survey-grounded trends, signed designer↔PM negotiation records, and QA broadcast discipline. allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Glob Grep Bash Task metadata: version: "1.0.0" tags: game-production, game-studio, bmad-gds, numeric-balance, core-loop, novelty, monetization, qa-archetypes, stage-gates platforms: Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode keyword: game-studio-harness source: akillness/jeo-skills --- # Game Studio Harness Producer-orchestrated 5-agent team for full game production cycles, following the bmad-gds method (intake brief → one operating mode → coordination artifact → specialist routing → milestone thread) with numeric quality gates. The harness is a standing structure: cycles repeat until the game ships and keep repeating for live operation. Read `references/quality-gates.md`, `references/stage-cycle.md`, and `references/artifact-contract.md` before creating a run. Gate thresholds in `references/quality-gates.md` override any paraphrase in this guide. ## When to use this skill - Start a new game production cycle from an idea, GDD, prototype, or existing build - Resume an in-flight cycle (read the newest `_workspace/*/production/task-manifest.md` first) - Run a stage-gate review (G1–G8 verdicts) on the current build - Reprioritize when playtest feedback, defects, and milestone pressure collide - 게임 제작/밸런스/수익화/QA 사이클을 하나의 팀으로 돌릴 때 Route narrower packets to their own skills instead: raw build/log failure → `game-build-log-triage`; profiler capture → `game-performance-profiler`; feedback-only triage → `game-demo-feedback-triage`; store-page/launch ops → `steam-store-launch-ops`; pre-production ideation → `bmad-idea`. ## Team | Role | Template | Owns | |---|---|---| | game-production-director | `templates/agents/game-production-director.md` | Intake, task manifest, gate verdicts, arbitration, retrospective | | game-designer | `templates/agents/game-designer.md` | Balance sheet, combo matrix, core loop, novelty scorecard, worldview, presentation spec, trend surveys | | game-pm | `templates/agents/game-pm.md` | Revenue map, reward bands (comeback ≤30%, free/paid parity 10–20 sessions, win-rate delta ≤5%p), negotiation record, revenue forecast | | game-programmer | `templates/agents/game-programmer.md` | Architecture contract, perf budget (p95 ≤16.7ms, input ≤100ms), movement-path optimization, tech verification, telemetry, defect responses | | game-qa | `templates/agents/game-qa.md` | Archetype rotation (≥5 types), exploit register, benchmark survey, gate measurements, defect/regression registers | Communication topology: director assigns and gates; QA broadcasts every exploit/discovery to ALL agents with a feedback request; designer↔PM negotiate reward/revenue couplings in a signed record; programmer answers every defect within the cycle (`fixed` or `deferred` + reasoning). ## Instructions ### Step 0: Preparation Why: every artifact must be traceable per run. 1. Derive `run-id` = `{YYYYMMDD}-{cycle-label}` and create `_workspace/{run-id}/{intake,design,pm,engineering,qa,ops,production,messages,retrospectives}/` at the target repo root. 2. If resuming, read the newest existing `_workspace/*/production/task-manifest.md` and the last retrospective; enter at the recorded stage instead of Stage 1. ### Step 1: Materialize the team Why: agents must be file-based so sessions can reuse them. - Claude Code with `CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1`: copy `templates/agents/*.md` into the target repo's `.claude/agents/` (skip files that already exist and match), then use TeamCreate + SendMessage + TaskCreate/TaskUpdate. - Any other runtime (Codex, Gemini, OpenCode) or teams flag off: run the same roles as sequential sub-agents in the phase order of `references/stage-cycle.md`; peer messages become numbered files in `_workspace/{run-id}/messages/{seq}-{from}.md`. ### Step 2: Intake (director) Normalize the request into `intake/production-brief.md` (bmad-gds schema: game_type, team_shape, engine, current_stage, next_public_beat, source_packet, main_constraint, main_question). Choose ONE operating mode for the cycle and state the next public beat explicitly. ### Step 3: Run the 3-stage operating cycle Follow `references/stage-cycle.md` exactly. Summary: - **Stage 1 — Concept, presentation, animation, resources, core build**: designer (concept + worldview + numeric skeleton + trend survey via the `survey` skill + core-loop candidate + presentation spec) ∥ PM (revenue-point draft) ∥ QA (benchmark survey + test plan + archetype set). Then designer↔PM negotiation round 1, then programmer builds core loop + presentation/animation + resource manifest + telemetry draft. Gate: G7 draft, G1 draft, G6-ops draft. - **Stage 2 — Balance, core-loop stability, novelty development**: QA exploit hunt across archetypes → designer retune → PM reward-band adjustment → negotiation round 2 → programmer applies data-only changes → QA re-verification. Gate: G2, G3, G5, G7 final, G8. - **Stage 3 — Ops stability and play impact (연출/시나리오/이펙트)**: programmer perf+memory+movement optimization and ops hardening ∥ designer+programmer presentation/scenario/effect impact pass ∥ QA full regression + immersion scoring ∥ PM revenue-consistency forecast. Gate: G4, G6 final, G1 final. Gate verdicts are PASS / FIX (≤2 revision loops) / REDO (previous stage). An open S1 defect or missing evidence blocks any PASS. ### Step 4: Cycle close (director) Write `retrospectives/cycle-{n}-retrospective.md`: per-gate measured values, unresolved risks, and the next-cycle entry decision (Stage 1 concept shift vs Stage 2 retune). The cycle loops — the studio is a standing structure, not a one-shot pipeline. ### Step 5: Error handling | Scenario | Response | |---|---| | Agent timeout | Retry once → mark task `failed`, continue partial, flag in gate review | | Data conflict | Log `conflicts.md`; prefer newer measurement; director arbitrates numerically | | Missing output | Gate cannot PASS; warn in review | | Messaging failure | File-based fallback via `messages/` | ## Examples ### Example 1: New cycle from an idea Input: "다크판타지 RTS 아이디어로 게임 제작 사이클 시작해줘" Expected: run-id created, production brief written, team materialized, Stage 1 tasks assigned; designer trend survey and QA benchmark survey run via the `survey` skill; cycle ends with retrospective + G1–G8 gate table. ### Example 2: Stage-gate review on existing build Input: "현재 빌드로 스테이지 게이트 리뷰 돌려줘" Expected: QA measures G1–G8 on the build, director issues per-gate PASS/FIX/REDO verdicts with evidence paths, FIX items become manifest tasks. ### Example 3: Balance emergency Input: "QA가 무한조합 익스플로잇 찾음, 사이클 재진입" Expected: enter at Stage 2 Phase 2a with the exploit register pre-seeded; designer retune, PM reward-coupling check, programmer data-only change, QA re-verifies the band before the gate closes. ## Best practices 1. One operating mode per cycle — mixing concept work and launch ops in one pass weakens both. 2. Numbers gate everything: no adjective ever passes a gate (`references/quality-gates.md`). 3. Surveys before invention: designer trend survey and QA benchmark survey are Stage 1 prerequisites, not optional garnish. 4. Preserve `_workspace/` artifacts — they are the studio's memory across cycles; never delete. 5. Keep the milestone thread: every task names the next public beat it serves. 6. QA broadcast discipline: every exploit/discovery goes to all agents with an explicit feedback request — QA sense is the studio's shared sense. ## References - [Quality Gates G1–G8](references/quality-gates.md) - [Stage Cycle Detail](references/stage-cycle.md) - [Artifact Contract](references/artifact-contract.md)