Skill: stanestane/game-design-one-thing-to-remove (version 1.0.0)

--- name: game-design-one-thing-to-remove description: Identify the single highest-leverage thing to remove from a game design, feature, system, UX flow, pitch, roadmap item, or prototype in order to improve it significantly. Use when a design feels bloated, muddy, overengineered, overly tutorialized, friction-heavy, or diluted by low-value mechanics, and you want a subtractive critique with rationale, tradeoffs, and a cleaner alternative. --- # Game Design One Thing To Remove Improve the design by cutting one thing, not by adding three more. Use this skill when a design would likely become better through subtraction. The goal is not to nitpick random dislikes. The goal is to identify the one removal with the highest leverage: the thing whose absence would most improve clarity, pacing, focus, emotional impact, usability, production efficiency, or strategic coherence. Read `references/removal-lenses.md` when deciding what kind of thing is most worth cutting. Read `references/evaluation-patterns.md` when you need the exact output pattern. ## What to produce Produce: 1. **Design read** - what the design is trying to do 2. **Removal candidate** - the one thing to remove 3. **Why this removal has highest leverage** - why this cut matters more than others 4. **What improves if removed** - concrete downstream effects 5. **Tradeoff** - what value is lost too 6. **Value-preserving alternative** - how to keep the good part without the bad part, if needed 7. **Verdict** - remove now, prototype without it, or cut later if evidence confirms ## Process ### 1. Understand what the design is trying to achieve Clarify: - the intended player experience - the core loop or promise - which parts feel central versus decorative - what business, retention, content, or production realities matter ### 2. Look for subtractive opportunities Check whether the design contains: - redundant mechanics - duplicate progression layers - false choices - low-value friction - weak reward currencies - tutorial clutter - content burdens that add little value - fantasy dilution - complexity that does not create meaningful depth ### 3. Identify the highest-leverage removal Pick one thing only. Do not list five cuts unless the user explicitly asks. Choose the removal whose absence would improve the design most significantly. Good candidates include: - one mechanic - one progression layer - one UI step - one rule or constraint - one reward type - one content dependency - one feature that muddies the fantasy ### 4. Explain the mechanism of improvement Do not say only that the design becomes “cleaner.” Explain exactly what improves, such as: - comprehension - pacing - motivation - readability - strategic clarity - production sustainability - onboarding burden - player trust - emotional focus ### 5. Acknowledge the loss honestly A good cut may still remove something useful. State what is lost and whether that loss matters. If appropriate, suggest a lighter substitute that preserves the upside without keeping the full problematic element. ### 6. Make a practical recommendation End with a decision such as: - remove now - prototype without it - keep for now, but cut if testing confirms the issue ## Response structure ### Design Read - ... ### One Thing I Would Remove - ... ### Why This Is the Highest-Leverage Cut - ... ### What Improves If Removed - ... ### What You Lose - ... ### How To Preserve the Good Part Without the Bad Part - ... ### Verdict - ... ## Fast mode - What is the design trying to do? - What single element is hurting it most? - Why is that element more worth cutting than anything else? - What gets better if it disappears? - What should replace it, if anything? ## Style rules - Be decisive. - Pick one thing. - Prefer mechanism over taste. - Do not recommend removal just because something is complex; complexity is acceptable if it creates real value. - Distinguish between elegant subtraction and destructive oversimplification. - If nothing should be removed, say that clearly and explain why. ## Working principle Many designs get worse because every problem is answered with addition. Sometimes the best improvement is subtraction with intent.


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