game-design-peak-end-audit
From the author
Audit a game, feature, session, level, event, onboarding flow, reward sequence, or return-player experience through the lens of the peak-end rule. Use when evaluating which moments players are most likely to remember, whether the emotional high points are strong enough, whether endings, exits, and completions leave the right aftertaste, or why an experience with decent average quality is still remembered as flat, frustrating, or unexpectedly great.
Install
npx skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill game-design-peak-end-audit -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/game-design-peak-end-audit/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
No download: this skill’s licence (Custom or unclear) does not let us redistribute its files. The install commands fetch them from GitHub instead.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 75
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- game-design-flow-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, level sequence, combat loop, progression curve, onboarding path, event structure, or return-player journey through the lens of Flow theory. Use when evaluating whether challenge and skill stay aligned over time, diagnosing boredom, anxiety, frustration spikes, difficulty cliffs, dead zones, or pacing drift, or identifying where a design stops feeling absorbing and starts feeling exhausting or empty.Design★ 86
- game-design-perceived-randomness-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game feature, combat system, loot table, reward loop, procedural system, chance mechanic, or uncertainty-driven design by how players are likely to perceive its randomness. Use when you need to evaluate whether a system will feel fair, streaky, rigged, sabotaging, manipulable, or skill-undermining; when players may misread independent events as patterned; or when randomness may sit too close to player action and create frustration. Analyze expectation gaps, gambler's-fallacy-style reactions, hidden pattern-seeking, input-versus-output randomness, perceived fairness, exploit risk, and ways to reshape presentation or mechanics.Design★ 86
- game-design-player-segment-perception-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game feature, live update, roadmap item, event, or content drop by how different player segments are likely to perceive it. Use when a feature is aimed at one cohort but visible to others, when update messaging may create excitement for players who cannot meaningfully access the feature, or when you need to understand how new, mid, and elder players will read the same feature differently.Design★ 86
- game-design-attribution-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, combat scenario, progression step, failure state, onboarding beat, or reward outcome through the lens of attribution theory: how players explain success and failure. Use when evaluating whether players will blame themselves, the system, luck, or hidden rules; diagnosing perceived unfairness, learned helplessness, rage, or churn after losses; or identifying where clarity, control, and feedback are too weak for healthy learning.Design★ 86
- game-design-leaderboard-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit an existing leaderboard or competitive ranking system in a game for stagnation risk, scale problems, goal density, motivation quality, reward bracket design, group composition fairness, and top-of-ladder sustainability. Use when evaluating a leaderboard that feels flat, unfair, or disengaging; when reviewing a competitive feature before launch; or when diagnosing why a leaderboard isn't driving expected engagement or retention.Design★ 86
- game-design-fairness-frustration-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, failure loop, combat encounter, reward system, progression wall, or high-variance mechanic for perceived fairness and frustration. Use when diagnosing whether players feel cheated, whether difficulty feels deserved, whether randomness, feedback, and challenge interact badly, or why a design remains technically functional yet still produces anger, blame, or refusal to retry.Design★ 86
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in