game-design-leaderboard-builder

Name: game-design-leaderboard-builder
Author: Stanestane

34stars3forks

How to install game-design-leaderboard-builder?

stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle/game-design-leaderboard-builder

$npx -y skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill game-design-leaderboard-builder

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Design a complete leaderboard system from scratch for a game, feature, or competitive mode. Covers group structure, league ladder, round cadence, reward brackets, score design, group composition, and top-of-ladder sustainability. Use when starting a new competitive feature, when

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Game Design Leaderboard Builder
2
3	Design a complete leaderboard system grounded in the game's context, player base, economy, and production constraints.
4
5	This skill asks eight intake questions before producing anything. Each question has a suggested default — accept it if you don't know the answer yet, or override it with specifics. The more precise the inputs, the more precisely calibrated the design.
6
7	## Core principle
8
9	A leaderboard is not a feature you bolt on — it is a metagame you design. Its structure determines how many goals players have, how long they stay engaged, and whether the competition feels fair and meaningful or frustrating and pointless. Get the inputs right before designing anything.
10
11	---
12
13	## Phase 1: Intake — ask these questions before proceeding
14
15	Present all eight questions. For each, offer the default assumption if the user does not provide an answer. Accept partial answers — use defaults for whatever is missing and flag those assumptions clearly in the output.
16
17	---
18
19	### Q1 — What is the score, and how fast does it change?
20
21	What metric are players competing on? How quickly can it change — can it shift meaningfully in a single play session, or does it accumulate slowly over days or weeks?
22
23	Why this matters: A slow-changing or lifetime-accumulated score produces a stagnant leaderboard regardless of how well the rest of the structure is designed. This is the most critical input.
24
25	Default assumption if unknown:
26	> Session-based score that can change meaningfully in a single play session. Score resets at the start of each competition round. Assumed moderate velocity — a committed player can move 10-20 positions per active session.
27
28	---
29
30	### Q2 — How large is your active player pool?
31
32	How many players will be actively competing in a single competition window? (Active = played at least once during the round.)
33
34	Why this matters: Pool size determines whether you need group segmentation, how many tiers the league ladder needs, and the pyramid shape of the whole structure.
35
36	Default assumption if unknown:
37	> 10,000 active competing players — a mid-size feature launch or a moderately successful mobile F2P title at a stable point in its lifecycle.
38
39	---
40
41	### Q3 — What is the desired competition round length?
42
43	How long does one competition round last before scores reset and standings are settled?
44
45	Why this matters: Round length affects urgency, the scoring velocity requirement, the reset-acceptance by players, and how often reward brackets pay out.
46
47	Default assumption if unknown:
48	> 7 days (weekly). The most tested and widely accepted cadence for mobile/F2P. Long enough to feel like a meaningful campaign; short enough to feel urgent.
49
50	---
51
52	### Q4 — What is the game context?
53
54	Genre, platform, and typical session length. What kind of game is this leaderboard sitting inside?
55
56	Why this matters: Session length affects what group size feels natural. Genre affects what competition feels fair. Platform affects notification and re-engagement patterns tied to the leaderboard cadence.
57
58	Default assumption if unknown:
59	> Mobile F2P. Sessions of 5–15 minutes. Daily play expected from active players. Core loop repeatable within a single session.
60
61	---
62
63	### Q5 — What rewards can you offer?
64
65	What prizes are available to distribute to bracket winners at the end of each round? Do you have meaningful differentiation between brackets, or is the reward pool limited?
66
67	Why this matters: The reward bracket structure only works if the rewards are worth competing for. The design of brackets depends entirely on what you can actually offer. If rewards are weak, the design must lean harder on intrinsic prestige.
68
69	Default assumption if unknown:
70	> Soft currency (moderate amount) for all rewarded positions. Exclusive cosmetic or rare content for top bracket. Diminishing but meaningful value down through mid-tier brackets. Consolation prize (small soft currency) for the bottom reward bracket. Nothing for players outside all brackets.
71
72	---
73
74	### Q6 — What is your player mix?
75
76	Roughly, what is the spread from casual to competitive players? Are there significant spenders (whales) who could dominate groups if mixed with free players?
77
78	Why this matters: Random group composition with a large spending gap produces whale-dominated leaderboards where most players have no real chance. Knowing the mix determines whether and how to segment gr

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

game-design-leaderboard-builder

34stars3forks

View on GitHub

How to install game-design-leaderboard-builder?

stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle/game-design-leaderboard-builder

$npx -y skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill game-design-leaderboard-builder

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Game Design Leaderboard Builder
2
3	Design a complete leaderboard system grounded in the game's context, player base, economy, and production constraints.
4
5	This skill asks eight intake questions before producing anything. Each question has a suggested default — accept it if you don't know the answer yet, or override it with specifics. The more precise the inputs, the more precisely calibrated the design.
6
7	## Core principle
8
9	A leaderboard is not a feature you bolt on — it is a metagame you design. Its structure determines how many goals players have, how long they stay engaged, and whether the competition feels fair and meaningful or frustrating and pointless. Get the inputs right before designing anything.
10
11	---
12
13	## Phase 1: Intake — ask these questions before proceeding
14
15	Present all eight questions. For each, offer the default assumption if the user does not provide an answer. Accept partial answers — use defaults for whatever is missing and flag those assumptions clearly in the output.
16
17	---
18
19	### Q1 — What is the score, and how fast does it change?
20
21	What metric are players competing on? How quickly can it change — can it shift meaningfully in a single play session, or does it accumulate slowly over days or weeks?
22
23	Why this matters: A slow-changing or lifetime-accumulated score produces a stagnant leaderboard regardless of how well the rest of the structure is designed. This is the most critical input.
24
25	Default assumption if unknown:
26	> Session-based score that can change meaningfully in a single play session. Score resets at the start of each competition round. Assumed moderate velocity — a committed player can move 10-20 positions per active session.
27
28	---
29
30	### Q2 — How large is your active player pool?
31
32	How many players will be actively competing in a single competition window? (Active = played at least once during the round.)
33
34	Why this matters: Pool size determines whether you need group segmentation, how many tiers the league ladder needs, and the pyramid shape of the whole structure.
35
36	Default assumption if unknown:
37	> 10,000 active competing players — a mid-size feature launch or a moderately successful mobile F2P title at a stable point in its lifecycle.
38
39	---
40
41	### Q3 — What is the desired competition round length?
42
43	How long does one competition round last before scores reset and standings are settled?
44
45	Why this matters: Round length affects urgency, the scoring velocity requirement, the reset-acceptance by players, and how often reward brackets pay out.
46
47	Default assumption if unknown:
48	> 7 days (weekly). The most tested and widely accepted cadence for mobile/F2P. Long enough to feel like a meaningful campaign; short enough to feel urgent.
49
50	---
51
52	### Q4 — What is the game context?
53
54	Genre, platform, and typical session length. What kind of game is this leaderboard sitting inside?
55
56	Why this matters: Session length affects what group size feels natural. Genre affects what competition feels fair. Platform affects notification and re-engagement patterns tied to the leaderboard cadence.
57
58	Default assumption if unknown:
59	> Mobile F2P. Sessions of 5–15 minutes. Daily play expected from active players. Core loop repeatable within a single session.
60
61	---
62
63	### Q5 — What rewards can you offer?
64
65	What prizes are available to distribute to bracket winners at the end of each round? Do you have meaningful differentiation between brackets, or is the reward pool limited?
66
67	Why this matters: The reward bracket structure only works if the rewards are worth competing for. The design of brackets depends entirely on what you can actually offer. If rewards are weak, the design must lean harder on intrinsic prestige.
68
69	Default assumption if unknown:
70	> Soft currency (moderate amount) for all rewarded positions. Exclusive cosmetic or rare content for top bracket. Diminishing but meaningful value down through mid-tier brackets. Consolation prize (small soft currency) for the bottom reward bracket. Nothing for players outside all brackets.
71
72	---
73
74	### Q6 — What is your player mix?
75
76	Roughly, what is the spread from casual to competitive players? Are there significant spenders (whales) who could dominate groups if mixed with free players?
77
78	Why this matters: Random group composition with a large spending gap produces whale-dominated leaderboards where most players have no real chance. Knowing the mix determines whether and how to segment gr

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type