Skill: stanestane/game-design-bartle-archetype-audit (version 1.0.0)

--- name: game-design-bartle-archetype-audit description: Audit a game, feature, event, progression system, social system, live-ops loop, or onboarding flow through the lens of Bartle player archetypes: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. Use when evaluating who a design motivates, who it neglects, whether a feature over-serves one archetype at the expense of others, how a system will be perceived by different motivational player types, or why engagement is uneven across different player motivations. --- # Game Design Bartle Archetype Audit Audit a design by asking which Bartle-type players it serves, frustrates, excludes, or accidentally overfeeds. Use this skill to evaluate how a game or feature lands with four classic player archetype lenses: - **Achievers** - driven by progress, status, optimization, completion, and measurable advancement - **Explorers** - driven by discovery, experimentation, hidden depth, and systemic curiosity - **Socializers** - driven by connection, expression, cooperation, recognition, and shared play - **Killers** - driven by domination, disruption, competition, advantage, and impact over others Treat these as motivational lenses, not rigid personality boxes. ## Core principle A feature rarely serves all player archetypes equally. That is not automatically a problem. The real question is whether the imbalance is intentional, healthy, and compatible with the broader game. A design can succeed by strongly serving one archetype, but it can also fail by unintentionally alienating others or by overfeeding one motivational pattern until it distorts the whole experience. ## What to produce Generate: 1. **Audit target** - what is being reviewed and what it is supposed to do 2. **Archetype-by-archetype reading** - how each Bartle lens experiences the design 3. **Motivational profile** - which archetypes are strongly served, weakly served, or actively harmed 4. **Imbalance diagnosis** - where the design overcommits, neglects, or creates unhealthy tension 5. **Recommendations** - what to strengthen, soften, separate, or clarify ## Process ### 1. Define the audit target Clarify: - what is being audited - what the feature or system is supposed to achieve - what player segment it seems primarily aimed at - whether it is core, optional, early-game, mid-game, endgame, or event-based ### 2. Audit for Achievers Ask: - Does this provide clear goals, progress, ranks, milestones, or measurable completion? - Is advancement legible and satisfying? - Are there optimization hooks or mastery ladders? - Does the system reward effort and planning in a visible way? - Does it create grind without meaningful payoff? Look for: - progression clarity - completion pressure - reward cadence - rank/status markers - optimization opportunities - scoreboard or collection incentives ### 3. Audit for Explorers Ask: - Does this create opportunities for discovery, experimentation, hidden depth, or surprising interactions? - Is there anything to uncover, test, or learn beyond the obvious path? - Does the feature reward curiosity, or punish deviation from the intended route? - Is the system too solved, too explicit, or too shallow to explore? Look for: - secrets or hidden layers - systemic depth - expressive experimentation - optional discovery - mystery and possibility - non-obvious interactions ### 4. Audit for Socializers Ask: - Does this support cooperation, expression, social recognition, gifting, helping, belonging, or conversation? - Are there reasons to share, show, support, or coordinate? - Does it create social presence or only social metrics? - Does the system feel socially alive or socially sterile? Look for: - communication value - collaboration loops - group identity - mutual dependency - recognition and expression - emotionally meaningful social rituals ### 5. Audit for Killers Ask: - Does this allow players to dominate, disrupt, outplay, pressure, or visibly outperform others? - Is there direct or indirect competition? - Does the system create status through relative power? - Is competitive energy healthy here, or does it poison the experience? - Could killer-facing incentives distort the feature for everyone else? Look for: - PvP or rivalry energy - visible advantage - denial or disruption power - dominance loops - competitive prestige - asymmetric leverage over others ### 6. Build the archetype profile For each archetype, rate the design as: - **Strongly served** - **Moderately served** - **Weakly served** - **Actively frustrated** Use this format: | Archetype | Rating | Why | Likely Response | |---|---|---|---| | Achievers | ... | ... | ... | | Explorers | ... | ... | ... | | Socializers | ... | ... | ... | | Killers | ... | ... | ... | ### 7. Diagnose imbalance and cross-archetype friction Ask: - Is the feature clearly built for one archetype while pretending to serve all? - Does one archetype's reward structure damage another's experience? - Is the design too narrow for the place it occupies in the game? - Does the game need this system to be broad, or is specialization acceptable here? Common imbalance patterns: - **Achiever trap** - everything becomes checklist, grind, ranking, and completion pressure - **Explorer starvation** - system is legible but dead, with nothing to discover or test - **Social shell** - other people are visible, but there is no real social meaning - **Killer contamination** - competitive pressure warps a space that should feel safe, expressive, or cooperative - **False inclusivity** - feature signals broad appeal but meaningfully serves only one player type ### 8. Convert findings into design actions For each major issue, specify: - **Archetype affected** - **Current issue** - **Design cause** - **Suggested change** - **Expected effect** ## Response structure ### Audit Target - ... ### Achievers - Strengths: ... - Weaknesses: ... ### Explorers - Strengths: ... - Weaknesses: ... ### Socializers - Strengths: ... - Weaknesses: ... ### Killers - Strengths: ... - Weaknesses: ... ### Archetype Profile - ... ### Imbalance Diagnosis - ... ### Recommendations 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ## Fast mode - Which archetype is this mainly serving? - Which archetype is getting the least value? - Which archetype could be actively harmed by this design? - Is that imbalance intentional and acceptable? - What one change would improve the weakest archetype fit without breaking the strongest one? ## References Read these when useful: - `references/bartle-notes.md` for a concise interpretation of the four archetypes in game-design terms - `references/failure-patterns.md` for common archetype imbalance shapes ## Working principle A feature does not need to satisfy every Bartle archetype equally. But if it strongly privileges one motivational type, that should be by design, not by accident.


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