Skill: stanestane/game-design-zeigarnik-effect-audit (version 1.0.0)

--- name: game-design-zeigarnik-effect-audit description: "Audit a game, feature, task system, quest flow, event track, puzzle chain, progression layer, or return loop through the lens of the Zeigarnik effect: the tension created by incomplete, interrupted, or unresolved tasks. Use when evaluating whether a design creates healthy return motivation through open loops, whether it leaves players with productive unfinished business, or whether it turns incompletion into anxiety, clutter, guilt, or manipulative pressure." --- # Game Design Zeigarnik Effect Audit Audit a design by asking how it uses unfinished business and whether that unfinishedness creates useful tension or just psychic clutter. Use this skill when a feature depends on incomplete tasks, suspended goals, unresolved quests, unfinished collections, interrupted runs, dangling mysteries, near-complete progress bars, or other forms of cognitive open-loop tension. The goal is to evaluate whether the design creates healthy return pull, curiosity, and momentum, or whether it produces guilt, overwhelm, clutter, and coercive pressure. Read `references/family-conventions.md` when you want the shared style, prioritization, and diagnosis rules for this game-design skill family. Read `references/output-patterns.md` when you want the preferred recommendation and minimal-fix structure. ## Core principle Unfinished things stick in the mind. In games, that can be powerful. An incomplete task can create: - return motivation - curiosity - anticipation - desire for closure - mental continuity between sessions But open loops become toxic when they create: - obligation without excitement - clutter without priority - anxiety without clarity - guilt without meaningful choice - manipulative pressure to return The point is not merely to leave things unfinished. The point is to leave the right things unfinished in the right way. ## What to produce Generate: 1. **Open-loop profile** - what unresolved elements the design leaves active in the player's mind 2. **Return-tension diagnosis** - whether incompletion creates healthy pull or unhealthy pressure 3. **Clarity and prioritization diagnosis** - whether the player knows what is unfinished and why it matters 4. **Clutter and coercion risks** - where open loops become noise, guilt, or manipulative burden 5. **Design actions** - what to sharpen, resolve, stage, reduce, or frame differently ## Process ### 1. Define the audit target Clarify: - what exact system, flow, or experience slice is being audited - what unresolved elements matter most - whether the concern is retention, curiosity, task load, or psychological pressure Write: - **Audit target** - **Open-loop type** - **Primary concern** ### 2. Identify the unresolved loops Look for things like: - incomplete quests - partial event tracks - nearly finished collections - dangling narrative mysteries - interrupted crafting or building goals - unresolved social obligations - suspended runs or puzzle attempts - pending claim states - visible near-misses Ask: - what remains unfinished? - what keeps that unfinishedness mentally active? - is the loop explicit, implied, or ambient? ### 3. Classify the kind of tension being created Useful categories include: - curiosity tension - completion tension - competence tension - social obligation tension - reward anticipation tension - scarcity/FOMO tension - guilt/maintenance tension Not all tension is equally healthy. ### 4. Audit clarity and closure path Ask: - does the player understand what is unresolved? - do they know how to resume or resolve it? - is the next step obvious enough to act on? - is there one clean open loop or a pile of competing ones? - does the system preserve meaningful stopping points, or does it always leave the player hanging messily? ### 5. Diagnose healthy versus unhealthy open loops Healthy open loops tend to be: - legible - meaningful - self-directed - motivating - finite enough to imagine closure Unhealthy open loops tend to be: - noisy - coercive - low-value - ambiguous - too numerous - attached to shame or maintenance burden Ask: - does the player return because they want closure, or because they feel nagged? - is the unfinishedness energizing or depleting? - is the pressure chosen or imposed? ### 6. Check interaction with session structure Ask: - does the system give players safe stopping points? - does it create a clear "one more thing" pull? - does it overload session endings with too many unresolved hooks? - does it preserve continuity between sessions without creating dread? This is especially important for retention design and return loops. ### 7. Diagnose Zeigarnik failure patterns Look for: - too many simultaneous unfinished tasks - near-completion bait with weak actual payoff - open loops that matter only because the UI keeps nagging about them - unresolved states with poor re-entry clarity - social obligations that convert return into guilt - cliffhangers without enough meaning to justify the tension - retention loops that feel manipulative rather than naturally compelling ### 8. Check audience sensitivity Ask whether: - completionists are energized while casual players are overwhelmed - new players feel buried under unresolved systems - lapsed players return to a wall of unfinished business and bounce - high-engagement players enjoy layered open loops that would suffocate lighter audiences ### 9. Convert findings into design changes For each issue, specify: - **Open-loop problem** - **Why it creates the wrong kind of tension** - **Suggested change** - **Expected effect on return motivation or psychological load** Examples: - reduce simultaneous unfinished objectives -> lowers clutter and increases focus - improve resume clarity -> turns vague guilt into actionable momentum - sharpen payoff framing -> makes incompletion feel worth resolving - add cleaner stopping points -> preserves return tension without making the session feel messy - reduce nagging visibility for low-value loops -> lowers manipulative pressure ## Response structure Use this structure unless the user asks for something else: ### Audit Target - ... ### Open-Loop Profile - ... ### Tension Type and Quality - ... ### Clarity and Resume Path - ... ### Clutter and Coercion Risks - ... ### Audience Sensitivity - ... ### Recommendations 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ### Minimal Fix - ... ## Fast mode Use this quick pass when speed matters: - What is being left unfinished? - Does that create curiosity, momentum, guilt, or clutter? - Does the player know how to resume it? - Are there too many open loops at once? - What one change would make the unfinished tension healthier? ## Usage notes This audit is especially useful for: - quest logs - event tracks - collection systems - cliffhanger-driven retention loops - city-building and crafting goals - return-player re-entry - social obligation systems - progression dashboards - puzzle chains and interrupted runs Common patterns to watch for: - many retention systems misuse open loops and create obligation instead of desire - incomplete tasks are powerful only when they are legible and meaningful - too many open loops destroy the benefit of any single one - a strong unresolved hook can improve return motivation, but a junk drawer of unresolved hooks kills it - if the player leaves thinking "I should go back," that may be good; if they leave thinking "ugh, I have chores waiting," that is not ## Working principle Unfinishedness is a tool, not a virtue. Use this skill to test whether the design leaves players with compelling momentum or just a backpack full of psychological clutter.

path: references/family-conventions.md
content: # Family Conventions

Use this file to keep this game-design skill family tonally and structurally aligned.

## Core style

- Be direct, concrete, and design-facing.
- Prefer clear diagnosis over academic display.
- Name the exact moment, system, or interaction where the issue appears.
- Avoid generic advice like "improve balance" or "add polish."
- When a tradeoff exists, state the tradeoff plainly.
- Favor actionable language over abstract theory recap.

## Analysis rules

- Audit player experience, not designer intention.
- Separate what is mechanically true from what players are likely to perceive.
- Distinguish local issues from structural issues.
- Call out contradictions instead of smoothing them over.
- Prefer 2 to 5 strong findings over a long bag of weak observations.
- If input is incomplete, infer cautiously and state assumptions.

## Recommendation rules

- Prioritize the highest-leverage fix first.
- State why the issue happens, not just what to change.
- When possible, provide one "minimal fix" and a broader strategic direction.
- If the right answer is removal, simplification, or reduction, say so.
- Separate must-fix issues from optional improvements when useful.

## Response conventions

Default sections should stay close to this order when applicable:
1. Target or framing
2. Diagnosis or profile
3. Key risks or contradictions
4. Recommendations
5. Minimal fix

## Voice guardrails

- Sound like a sharp design partner, not a textbook.
- Do not pad with praise or softening filler.
- Do not confuse length with rigor.
- If the design is muddled, say it is muddled.
- If the design has a strong core, say that too.

path: references/output-patterns.md
content: # Output Patterns

Use these patterns when forming the final answer.

## Good recommendation pattern

For each major recommendation, prefer this structure:
- **Issue** - what is going wrong
- **Cause** - why it is happening
- **Change** - what to alter
- **Expected effect** - how player experience should improve

## Minimal fix pattern

End with the smallest realistic change that would materially improve the design without requiring a total redesign.

## Evidence pattern

When the input includes specific moments, systems, complaints, or test observations:
- cite them directly
- tie every conclusion back to them
- avoid floating theory that is not anchored to the case

## Sharpness pattern

When several issues exist, prioritize:
1. trust-breaking problems
2. learning-blocking problems
3. motivation-killing problems
4. optimization or polish problems

Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)