team-level by @donchitos | Agent Skill Hub

When this skill is invoked:

Decision Points: At each step transition, use AskUserQuestion to present the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels. In collaborative mode, the user must approve before moving to the next step. In guided mode the pipeline advances automatically unless a step is BLOCKED; in autonomous mode it runs end to end, recording each step outcome via log_decision. Decisions in automation_always_ask categories (is_always_ask_category helper) always prompt regardless of mode. See .claude/docs/automation-modes.md.

Phase 0: Resolve Config

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,team.size

Resolved above — use as-is; --review overrides review_mode. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

review_mode sets gate depth:

full — spawn all director and lead gates as described
lean — skip director gates unless they are PHASE-GATE type (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE)
solo — skip all director gate spawning entirely; run the skill without any agent gates

automation drives the Decision Points note above. See the Decision Points note above and .claude/docs/automation-modes.md for how each mode changes pipeline behavior.

team.size: which agents are active (orthogonal to review_mode gate-depth and workflow docs).

individual (default): level-designer + gameplay-programmer. Other agents consulted via these two, not spawned separately.
small: + systems-designer + art-director.
studio: + narrative-director + world-builder + accessibility-specialist. Directors (CD/TD/PR) still spawn at phase gates regardless of size; a non-core agent needed at individual routes through the nearest active core agent with an informational note. "Phase gate" means any phase that ends in an AskUserQuestion decision point before the pipeline advances — not every phase. Apply the test literally: if the phase below has no decision point, it is not a gate, and an agent restricted to "phase gates only" is not spawned for it. This active-set scoping applies throughout the pipeline below: any phase that names an agent outside the active set routes through the nearest core agent rather than spawning it.

Announce the active set before Step 1 — never let the collapse be silent. Before spawning anything, state in one line which agents this run will actually spawn, and which the pipeline below names but will not spawn at the resolved team.size. For example:

Active set (team.size: <resolved>): <the agents listed for that size above>. Not spawned this run: <every other agent this pipeline names> — consulted through <nearest active core agent>. Raise team.size (or modes.rigor) to widen.

Fill it from the team.size list directly above and the agents this file's own pipeline names — not from an example. Both sets differ per orchestrator.

The pipeline below reads as a multi-agent fan-out and at the shipped default it is one or two agents — team-release names eight and runs one, team-narrative names six across five phases and runs writer alone. The collapse is correct: team.size is rigor-fronted and the narrow default is the token lever, measured at roughly 10x. What was wrong is that nothing said so, so a reader could not distinguish a correctly-collapsed run from a broken pipeline, and the per-agent "routes through the nearest core agent with an informational note" rule above fires at routing time and never states the shape of the run as a whole.

This is the same rule as the skipped-check reporting elsewhere in this file: a constraint that is enforced but never surfaced is indistinguishable, to the person reading the output, from one that was never enforced.

Read the argument for the target level or area (e.g., tutorial, forest dungeon, hub town, final boss arena).
Gather context:
- Read the game concept at design/gdd/game-concept.md
- Read game pillars at design/gdd/game-pillars.md
- Read existing level docs in design/levels/
- Read relevant narrative docs in design/narrative/
- Read world-building docs for the area's region/faction

How to Delegate

Use the Agent tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:

subagent_type: narrative-director — Narrative purpose, characters, emotional arc
subagent_type: world-builder — Lore context, environmental storytelling, world rules
subagent_type: level-designer — Spatial layout, pacing, encounters, navigation
subagent_type: systems-designer — Enemy compositions, loot tables, difficulty balance
subagent_type: art-director — Visual theme, color palette, lighting, asset requirements
subagent_type: accessibility-specialist — Navigation clarity, colorblind safety, cognitive load
subagent_type: qa-tester — Test cases, boundary testing, playtest checklist

Brief each agent — do not dump context. Read the shared inputs once and pass a distilled brief inline: the lines each agent actually needs, never a file path for a document you have already read (an agent handed a path re-reads the whole file). Pass a path only for a document you have not read and only that agent needs.

End every agent prompt with a return contract: "Write your full output to [path] — that named path is your write authorisation under the bounded exception below, so write it without a separate approval prompt. Return only (1) the path written, (2) a ≤5-bullet summary of decisions, (3) any BLOCKED/CONCERNS items, one line each. Do not restate the documents you read." Without it, an agent returns everything it read back into this session.

Why this does not violate the Collaboration Protocol. CLAUDE.md requires an agent to ask "May I write this to [filepath]?" before Write/Edit. A subagent spawned here writes without asking, and that is a deliberate, bounded exception rather than an oversight — the same call already made for consistency-check appending to active.md. The exception holds only when all three are true: (1) the path is one you named in the prompt, so the user approved the destination when they approved the phase; (2) it is a new artifact under production/, docs/ or tests/, never an edit to existing source or config; (3) the phase that produced it is itself gated by an AskUserQuestion before the pipeline advances. Outside those three, the agent must ask. Do not "fix" this by asking per subagent — a prompt per agent per phase makes an orchestrator unusable, which is why the exception exists.

Orchestrate the level design team in sequence:

Step 1: Narrative + Visual Direction (narrative-director + world-builder + art-director, parallel)

Spawn all three agents simultaneously — issue all three Agent calls before waiting for any result.

Spawn the narrative-director agent to:

Define the narrative purpose of this area (what story beats happen here?)
Identify key characters, dialogue triggers, and lore elements
Specify emotional arc (how should the player feel entering, during, leaving?)

Spawn the world-builder agent to:

Provide lore context for the area (history, faction presence, ecology)
Define environmental storytelling opportunities
Specify any world rules that affect gameplay in this area

Spawn the art-director agent to:

Establish visual theme targets for this area — these are INPUTS to layout, not outputs of it
Define the color temperature and lighting mood for this area (how does it differ from adjacent areas?)
Specify shape language direction (angular fortress? organic cave? decayed grandeur?)
Name the primary visual landmarks that will orient the player
Read design/art/art-bible.md if it exists — anchor all direction in the established art bible

The art-director's visual targets from Step 1 must be passed to the level-designer in Step 2 as explicit constraints. Layout decisions happen within the visual direction, not before it.

Gate: Use AskUserQuestion to present all three Step 1 outputs (narrative brief, lore foundation, visual direction targets) and confirm before proceeding to Step 2.

Step 2: Layout and Encounter Design (level-designer)

Spawn the level-designer agent with the full Step 1 output as context:

Narrative brief (from narrative-director)
Lore foundation (from world-builder)
Visual direction targets (from art-director) — layout must work within these targets, not contradict them

The level-designer should:

Design the spatial layout (critical path, optional paths, secrets) — ensuring primary routes align with the visual landmark targets from Step 1
Define pacing curve (tension peaks, rest areas, exploration zones) — coordinated with the emotional arc from narrative-director
Place encounters with difficulty progression
Design environmental puzzles or navigation challenges
Define points of interest and landmarks for wayfinding — these must match the visual landmarks the art-director specified
Specify entry/exit points and connections to adjacent areas

Adjacent area dependency check: After the layout is produced, check design/levels/ for each adjacent area referenced by the level-designer. If any referenced area's .md file does not exist, surface the gap:

"Level references [area-name] as an adjacent area but design/levels/[area-name].md does not exist."

Use AskUserQuestion with options:

(a) Proceed with a placeholder reference — mark the connection as UNRESOLVED in the level doc and list it in the open cross-level dependencies section of the summary report
(b) Pause and run /team-level [area-name] first to establish that area

Do NOT invent content for the missing adjacent area.

Gate: Use AskUserQuestion to present Step 2 layout (including any unresolved adjacent area dependencies) and confirm before proceeding to Step 3.

Step 3: Systems Integration (systems-designer)

Spawn the systems-designer agent to:

Specify enemy compositions and encounter formulas
Define loot tables and reward placement
Balance difficulty relative to expected player level/gear
Design any area-specific mechanics or environmental hazards
Specify resource distribution (health pickups, save points, shops)

Gate: Use AskUserQuestion to present Step 3 outputs and confirm before proceeding to Step 4.

Step 4: Production Concepts + Accessibility (art-director + accessibility-specialist, parallel)

Note: The art-director's directional pass (visual theme, color targets, mood) happened in Step 1. This pass is location-specific production concepts — given the finalized layout, what does each specific space look like?

Spawn the art-director agent with the finalized layout from Step 2:

Produce location-specific concept specs for key spaces (entrance, key encounter zones, landmarks, exits)
Specify which art assets are unique to this area vs. shared from the global pool
Define sight-line and lighting setups per key space (these are now layout-informed, not directional)
Specify VFX needs that are specific to this area's layout (weather volumes, particles, atmospheric effects)
Flag any locations where the layout creates visual direction conflicts with the Step 1 targets — surface these as production risks

Spawn the accessibility-specialist agent in parallel to:

Review the level layout for navigation clarity (can players orient themselves without relying on color alone?)
Check that critical path signposting uses shape/icon/sound cues in addition to color
Review any puzzle mechanics for cognitive load — flag anything that requires holding more than 3 simultaneous states
Check that key gameplay areas have sufficient contrast for colorblind players
Output: accessibility concerns list with severity (BLOCKING / RECOMMENDED / NICE TO HAVE)

Wait for both agents to return before proceeding.

Gate: Use AskUserQuestion to present both Step 4 results. If the accessibility-specialist returned any BLOCKING concerns, highlight them prominently and offer:

(a) Return to level-designer and art-director to redesign the flagged elements before Step 5
(b) Document as a known accessibility gap and proceed to Step 5 with the concern explicitly logged in the final report

Do NOT proceed to Step 5 without the user acknowledging any BLOCKING accessibility concerns.

Step 5: QA Planning (qa-tester)

Spawn the qa-tester agent to:

Write test cases for the critical path
Identify boundary and edge cases (sequence breaks, softlocks)
Create a playtest checklist for the area
Define acceptance criteria for level completion

Compile the level design document combining all team outputs into the level design template format.

The orchestrator already holds every sub-agent's output — compile the document itself; do not re-spawn level-designer and re-send all outputs verbatim. That second spawn pays a fresh agent's overhead plus a full re-transmission of context the orchestrator already has, to move text it is already holding. After compiling into the level-design template format, ask the user directly via AskUserQuestion: "May I write the compiled level design to design/levels/[level-name].md?" On approval, write it.

Save to design/levels/[level-name].md after that approval.
Output a summary with: area overview, encounter count, estimated asset list, narrative beats, any cross-team dependencies or open questions, open cross-level dependencies (adjacent areas referenced but not yet designed, each marked UNRESOLVED), and accessibility concerns with their resolution status.

File Write Protocol

Per-agent artifacts (narrative docs, test checklists) are written by the sub-agent that produced them, under the bounded exception documented above under "Why this does not violate the Collaboration Protocol" — the path is one you named, the artifact is new under production/, docs/ or tests/, and the phase is gated by an AskUserQuestion. A sub-agent does not prompt per write inside those bounds; outside them it must ask. The one exception is the final compiled level-design document: the orchestrator already holds every input, so it compiles and writes that file itself after its own "May I write …?" prompt (Step 4) — re-spawning an agent just to write text the orchestrator is already holding is pure overhead.

Verdict: COMPLETE — level design document produced and all team outputs compiled. Verdict: BLOCKED — one or more agents blocked; partial report produced with unresolved items listed.

Next Steps

Run /design-review design/levels/[level-name].md to validate the completed level design doc.
Run /dev-story to implement level content once the design is approved.
Run /qa-plan to generate a QA test plan for this level.

Error Recovery Protocol

First, verify the artifact. If the return contract named a path, check the path exists before treating the phase as done — a named artifact that is not on disk is a failed phase, however fluent the response reads. An agent can burn a full phase and return a plausible preamble having written nothing, which is neither BLOCKED nor an error nor "cannot complete", so the trigger below never fires. Resume it naming the unmet contract; the context is usually still there.

If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete: surface it immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a partial report. Full procedure: .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md.

Common blockers:

Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
ADR status is Proposed → do not implement; run /architecture-decision first
Scope too large → split into two stories via /create-stories
Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess