design-red-team-audit

Name: design-red-team-audit
Author: Stanestane

34stars3forks

How to install design-red-team-audit?

stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle/design-red-team-audit

$npx -y skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill design-red-team-audit

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Adversarial design audit that stress-tests a game feature, system, pitch, roadmap item, or product idea by assuming failure and identifying the most credible reasons it would fail. Use when pressure-testing a concept before production, performing a pre-mortem, challenging a featu

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Design Red Team Audit
2
3	Perform a deliberately adversarial review of a game idea, feature, system, pitch, roadmap item, or product concept.
4
5	This is not a generic brainstorming pass and not a supportive ideation pass. Assume the idea fails, underperforms, or causes damage, then work backward to identify the most credible reasons why.
6
7	## Purpose
8
9	Expose:
10	- hidden assumptions
11	- likely failure modes
12	- player-facing weaknesses
13	- production and rollout risks
14	- strategic misfires
15	- fake confidence created by vague goals or weak metrics
16
17	## Working stance
18
19	Adopt the stance of a sharp, skeptical reviewer.
20
21	Be hard on the idea, not sloppy.
22	Avoid vague negativity.
23	Every criticism should point to a mechanism of failure.
24
25	Bad:
26	- "Players may not like this."
27	- "This seems risky."
28	- "This could be confusing."
29
30	Good:
31	- "The feature adds a second layer of optimization, but the player is never given enough feedback to understand whether they are making good decisions. That creates opacity rather than mastery."
32	- "The concept appears to target elder players, but the fantasy is marketed in a way that mainly excites early players who cannot access the feature. That mismatch is likely to produce tease without payoff."
33	- "The MVP cuts the connective tissue that explains why the system matters, so a test of the reduced version may produce a false negative."
34
35	## Inputs
36
37	The user may provide:
38	- a feature description
39	- a concept pitch
40	- a problem statement
41	- a design document
42	- a roadmap item
43	- a prototype summary
44	- a postmortem candidate
45	- a deck or presentation
46	- a system description
47	- target KPIs or business goals
48	- intended player segment
49
50	If information is missing, make reasonable assumptions, but state them clearly.
51
52	## Audit lenses
53
54	Examine the idea through these lenses where relevant:
55
56	### 1. Goal failure
57	- Is the problem worth solving?
58	- Is the stated goal vague, inflated, or contradictory?
59	- Are there multiple hidden goals fighting each other?
60
61	### 2. Player value failure
62	- Why would players not care?
63	- Why would they misunderstand the promise?
64	- Why would the feature feel annoying, manipulative, shallow, or irrelevant?
65	- Which audience is supposed to care, and why might they not?
66
67	### 3. UX and comprehension failure
68	- What will be confusing?
69	- What is too hidden, too abstract, too fiddly, or too effortful?
70	- Does the system demand understanding before it provides motivation?
71
72	### 4. Systemic design failure
73	- Does it conflict with the core loop?
74	- Does it create complexity without depth?
75	- Does it cannibalize existing motivations, rewards, or behaviors?
76	- Does it introduce incentives that break other systems?
77
78	### 5. Content and scalability failure
79	- Is this too content-hungry?
80	- Does the design require more tuning, writing, art, balancing, or live support than it appears?
81	- Will the idea collapse into repetition?
82
83	### 6. Production failure
84	- Is the concept harder to implement than it sounds?
85	- Are dependencies hidden?
86	- Is cross-discipline alignment likely to break?
87	- Is the team pretending the scope is smaller than it is?
88
89	### 7. Prototype and validation failure
90	- Is the prototype plan incapable of answering the actual unknowns?
91	- Is the team building a demo instead of testing the risk?
92	- Could a prototype produce misleading confidence?
93
94	### 8. MVP failure
95	- What essential element is likely to be cut?
96	- Does the stripped-down version remove the very thing that would make the concept work?
97	- Could the MVP create a false negative or false positive?
98
99	### 9. KPI and measurement failure
100	- Are success metrics weak, gameable, or indirect?
101	- Is the team measuring activity instead of value?
102	- Could the idea look successful in dashboards while harming the experience?
103
104	### 10. Rollout failure
105	- What happens when this meets real players?
106	- Does the launch plan rely on perfect tuning, perfect communication, or perfect segmentation?
107	- Is the team prepared only for success?
108
109	### 11. Strategic failure
110	- Even if it works, is it worth doing?
111	- Is this a distraction from higher-value work?
112	- Does it fit the game’s identity and long-term direction?
113
114	## Output format
115
116	Structure the response with the following sections:
117
118	### Verdict
119	Choose one:
120	- Worth exploring
121	- Promising but fragile
122	- Viable with major risks
123	- Structurally weak
124	- Not worth pursuing in current form
125
126	Then explain why in 2–5 sentences.
127
128	### Most Credible Failure Modes
129	List the top 3–7 failure modes.
130	For each one include:
131	- Failure mode
132	- Why it happens
133	- **Likely consequen

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

design-red-team-audit

34stars3forks

View on GitHub

How to install design-red-team-audit?

stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle/design-red-team-audit

$npx -y skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill design-red-team-audit

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Design Red Team Audit
2
3	Perform a deliberately adversarial review of a game idea, feature, system, pitch, roadmap item, or product concept.
4
5	This is not a generic brainstorming pass and not a supportive ideation pass. Assume the idea fails, underperforms, or causes damage, then work backward to identify the most credible reasons why.
6
7	## Purpose
8
9	Expose:
10	- hidden assumptions
11	- likely failure modes
12	- player-facing weaknesses
13	- production and rollout risks
14	- strategic misfires
15	- fake confidence created by vague goals or weak metrics
16
17	## Working stance
18
19	Adopt the stance of a sharp, skeptical reviewer.
20
21	Be hard on the idea, not sloppy.
22	Avoid vague negativity.
23	Every criticism should point to a mechanism of failure.
24
25	Bad:
26	- "Players may not like this."
27	- "This seems risky."
28	- "This could be confusing."
29
30	Good:
31	- "The feature adds a second layer of optimization, but the player is never given enough feedback to understand whether they are making good decisions. That creates opacity rather than mastery."
32	- "The concept appears to target elder players, but the fantasy is marketed in a way that mainly excites early players who cannot access the feature. That mismatch is likely to produce tease without payoff."
33	- "The MVP cuts the connective tissue that explains why the system matters, so a test of the reduced version may produce a false negative."
34
35	## Inputs
36
37	The user may provide:
38	- a feature description
39	- a concept pitch
40	- a problem statement
41	- a design document
42	- a roadmap item
43	- a prototype summary
44	- a postmortem candidate
45	- a deck or presentation
46	- a system description
47	- target KPIs or business goals
48	- intended player segment
49
50	If information is missing, make reasonable assumptions, but state them clearly.
51
52	## Audit lenses
53
54	Examine the idea through these lenses where relevant:
55
56	### 1. Goal failure
57	- Is the problem worth solving?
58	- Is the stated goal vague, inflated, or contradictory?
59	- Are there multiple hidden goals fighting each other?
60
61	### 2. Player value failure
62	- Why would players not care?
63	- Why would they misunderstand the promise?
64	- Why would the feature feel annoying, manipulative, shallow, or irrelevant?
65	- Which audience is supposed to care, and why might they not?
66
67	### 3. UX and comprehension failure
68	- What will be confusing?
69	- What is too hidden, too abstract, too fiddly, or too effortful?
70	- Does the system demand understanding before it provides motivation?
71
72	### 4. Systemic design failure
73	- Does it conflict with the core loop?
74	- Does it create complexity without depth?
75	- Does it cannibalize existing motivations, rewards, or behaviors?
76	- Does it introduce incentives that break other systems?
77
78	### 5. Content and scalability failure
79	- Is this too content-hungry?
80	- Does the design require more tuning, writing, art, balancing, or live support than it appears?
81	- Will the idea collapse into repetition?
82
83	### 6. Production failure
84	- Is the concept harder to implement than it sounds?
85	- Are dependencies hidden?
86	- Is cross-discipline alignment likely to break?
87	- Is the team pretending the scope is smaller than it is?
88
89	### 7. Prototype and validation failure
90	- Is the prototype plan incapable of answering the actual unknowns?
91	- Is the team building a demo instead of testing the risk?
92	- Could a prototype produce misleading confidence?
93
94	### 8. MVP failure
95	- What essential element is likely to be cut?
96	- Does the stripped-down version remove the very thing that would make the concept work?
97	- Could the MVP create a false negative or false positive?
98
99	### 9. KPI and measurement failure
100	- Are success metrics weak, gameable, or indirect?
101	- Is the team measuring activity instead of value?
102	- Could the idea look successful in dashboards while harming the experience?
103
104	### 10. Rollout failure
105	- What happens when this meets real players?
106	- Does the launch plan rely on perfect tuning, perfect communication, or perfect segmentation?
107	- Is the team prepared only for success?
108
109	### 11. Strategic failure
110	- Even if it works, is it worth doing?
111	- Is this a distraction from higher-value work?
112	- Does it fit the game’s identity and long-term direction?
113
114	## Output format
115
116	Structure the response with the following sections:
117
118	### Verdict
119	Choose one:
120	- Worth exploring
121	- Promising but fragile
122	- Viable with major risks
123	- Structurally weak
124	- Not worth pursuing in current form
125
126	Then explain why in 2–5 sentences.
127
128	### Most Credible Failure Modes
129	List the top 3–7 failure modes.
130	For each one include:
131	- Failure mode
132	- Why it happens
133	- **Likely consequen

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type