game-design-fogg-behavior-audit
From the author
Audit a game feature, flow, event, onboarding step, progression action, monetization surface, retention mechanic, or social prompt using the Fogg Behavior Model: Motivation, Ability, Prompt. Use when evaluating whether a design actually causes the intended player behavior, diagnosing weak feature adoption, identifying friction or mistimed prompts, or understanding why a feature that seems valuable is not being used.
Install
npx skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill game-design-fogg-behavior-audit -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/game-design-fogg-behavior-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-player-motivation-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, live-ops system, progression loop, social feature, or monetization surface using a Self-Determination Theory-inspired motivation framework. Use when evaluating what kind of motivation a design creates, comparing alternative motivational profiles, diagnosing why a system feels sticky, hollow, exhausting, or dead, checking overreliance on rewards and grind, or assessing whether a feature supports short-term activation, medium-term habit, or long-term player identity.Design★ 86
- game-design-thinking-fast-and-slow-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, combat system, economy loop, onboarding flow, puzzle, UI, or design proposal through the lens of fast versus slow thinking inspired by Thinking, Fast and Slow. Use when evaluating whether a design relies on rapid intuitive judgment or deliberate analytical reasoning, whether the intended mode matches the actual demand, where cognitive overload or under-stimulation appears, or how badly the design handles shifts between instinctive and reflective play.Design★ 86
- 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-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
- game-design-friction-journey-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature flow, economy path, onboarding journey, progression chain, or live-ops loop for friction quality and friction accumulation. Use when diagnosing where players stall, disengage, churn, or feel overloaded; when distinguishing productive challenge from harmful friction; or when evaluating whether constraints, waiting, confusion, resource pressure, or multi-step dependencies are creating strategy, tension, frustration, or deadlock.Design★ 86
- game-design-granular-player-motivation-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, progression system, social system, live-ops loop, monetization surface, or onboarding flow through a granular player motivation taxonomy. Use when evaluating which player motivation archetypes a design strongly serves, neglects, or actively repels; when comparing a concept against segments such as Steady Advancers, Curious Solvers, Competitive Achievers, Imaginative Creators, Strategic Leaders, Immersed Storywriters, Reward Seekers, Passionate Belongers, and Category Enthusiasts; when translating player research into practical design recommendations; or when you need a more nuanced alternative to a simple Bartle-style motivation read.Design★ 86
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in