Repository navigation
docs: add independent SLIDE beta gameplay critic skill #191
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| name: slide-game-critic | ||
| description: Independent critic for DEALT/SLIDE beta gameplay, tactical-diorama visuals and retention. Use after real playable-session captures exist, after a builder repair round, or when judging whether a mobile-and-desktop beta pass is production-quality. | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # SLIDE game critic | ||
|
|
||
| Work as a **separate reviewer** from the player/builder. Do not score your own changes; do not silently repair issues while judging. Read `AGENTS.md`, `docs/AI_CONTRIBUTOR_START_HERE.md`, `docs/PROJECT_LOG.md`, the issue and open PRs, and `docs/GAMER_GROK_BETA_TESTER_SPEC.md` if present. Consult the repo's visual-direction skill for the active renderer/camera; don't impose tactical-diorama standards on a different camera mode. Treat the real app, current revision and actual player trace as the source of truth. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Required evidence before scoring | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Record tested URL or local command, deployed/checkout SHA, demo versus authenticated mode, browser, device dimensions and date. If no accessible build or verified revision exists, mark **NOT PLAYED / NOT SCORED**. | ||
| 2. Request a trace of actual player actions and outcome deltas, console/error log, and at least one cold-to-return play loop: gate → desktop → Map/Strip → contact/placement → operate → NPC encounter → result/recovery → reload. Distinguish untested stages from failed stages. | ||
| 3. Sample **8–12 frames** from a real recording using a reproducible seed derived from SHA + round and spread them across the loop; include mandatory phone (375×812) and desktop (1440×900) captures and at least one combat/result frame. If only screenshots exist, sample available captures and mark animation continuity **not assessed**. Record source, timestamp or action, viewport and seed. Do not invent frames, performance numbers, interactions or outcomes. | ||
| 4. For a founder photo member, evaluate only if the private image was actually provided through an approved private channel. Never publish identifiable source/generated faces or likeness in a public issue, PR, report attachment or benchmark. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Judge as a current player, not an internal developer | ||
|
|
||
| Give concrete on-screen observations and actionable alternatives. Evaluate the sequence as a coherent single-player strategy game rather than isolated mini-games. Compare *mechanics*, not brand fame: dealer/economy feedback versus Schedule I, tactical telegraphing versus Into the Breach, compulsion/feedback versus Balatro, heat/territory versus Cartel Tycoon, transaction agency versus Dealer's Life 2. Verify any current success/popularity claim from a current cited source; these are partial comparators, not identical genre labels. Ask: after two loops, would a gamer voluntarily play again, and what decision would they be eager to try next? | ||
|
|
||
| Score each 0–10 with evidence: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Gameplay**: cold-start comprehension (20%), meaningful placement/risk choices (25%), readable encounter and exactly-once consequence feedback (25%), pacing/reward/replay motive (20%), control/accessibility/reliability (10%). A broken or unplayed critical path caps the score at 7. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When a build is accessible but the encounter, recovery, or reload path cannot actually be exercised, this rule still permits a Gameplay score as high as 7. That conflicts with the earlier requirement for an actual cold-to-return trace and with the later instruction to treat an unavailable environment as a blocker rather than a fake negative score, so a critic can label wholly untested gameplay “usable” from static evidence. Make an unplayed critical path AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L14-L14 Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| - **Visuals**: scene/style/camera/lighting continuity (25%), hierarchy/legibility at final phone size (25%), clear tactical affordances and actor states (25%), alignment/overflow/safe areas and motion consistency (25%). Without adjacent frames, do not score animation continuity as observed; state the missing evidence. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When the critic receives screenshots without adjacent frames, this rule says animation continuity is unassessed, but the Visuals score still includes motion consistency inside a weighted 25% subcriterion and must still produce a numeric result. Because there is no rule to omit, reweight, cap, or block that score, critics can calculate materially different Visuals scores from identical evidence, and one can still award an 8+ candidate-quality verdict without observing motion. Define the missing-evidence calculation or make moving evidence mandatory for the threshold. Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| - **Composite**: arithmetic mean of Gameplay and Visuals, rounded to one decimal; also state confidence (high/medium/low). An average cannot conceal a weak dimension. | ||
|
|
||
| Interpretation: 0–3 broken; 4–7 usable but below production-quality; **8+ candidate-quality** only when *each* dimension ≥8, the real phone and desktop path is evidenced, no P0/P1 remains, and critical recovery/reload behavior was exercised. This is a critique threshold, not launch authorization; external beta still depends on authenticated saved-game and release gates (notably #175). Do not move a threshold to pass. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When weighted subcriteria produce a fractional dimension score such as 3.5 or 7.5, none of the stated interpretation bands applies: Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
|
|
||
| ## Independent feedback and repair loop | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Return a ranked top-five issue list to the builder: `GG-###`, severity, action/viewport, evidence link (redacted if private), expected/observed, player harm, smallest repair or experiment, and a measurable success check. Separate confirmed defects from design hypotheses. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When a critic produces the required top-five list, Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| 2. The builder may take at most **three bounded repair rounds** after baseline critique. Each repair uses its own assigned issue/file reservation, failing regression, focused fix, full preflight and real player replay; changes go to a draft PR for independent integration. Do not broaden into a new engine, mini-game, persistence writer, Supabase or production deployment. | ||
| 3. Re-sample/re-score independently after **each actual repair** (new SHA and new evidence). Stop when both scores reach ≥8 with gates met, or after round three. Report the residual issues honestly; never manufacture evidence, tell the builder how to game the rating, or claim a passing build proves fun. | ||
| 4. A P0 blocks broad testing. An unavailable browser/photo/authenticated environment is a blocker, not a fake negative score. Demo requires no credentials; authenticated staging requires disposable users via approved private sign-in, never passwords in issue/PR/chat. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Output contract | ||
|
|
||
| Return `build/revision + route`, sampling seed and frame table, observed player trace, two dimension scores/composite/confidence, 0–10 subcriteria, verdict and gate reasons, ranked findings, competitor observations with citations, builder round number and re-test deltas, unresolved/untested items, and next smallest safe step. State whether the reviewer was a distinct agent and whether screenshots or actual moving footage were available. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When different critics review the same recording, deriving a seed from
SHA + rounddoes not determine which frames they select: the instruction specifies neither the hash/PRNG nor how timestamps or eligible frames are mapped from that seed, while “spread them across the loop” still permits manual selection. Consequently, the frame table cannot actually be reproduced and reviewers can unintentionally cherry-pick different evidence, undermining score comparisons across repair rounds; specify a deterministic candidate-frame ordering and selection algorithm.Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.