game-design-social-satisfaction-matrix
From the author
Evaluate a game's social features and multiplayer elements by their potential to create social satisfaction versus social dissatisfaction. Use when auditing chat, voice, friend systems, gifting, lobbies, social hubs, guilds, reporting tools, cooperative mechanics, profile surfaces, or other social elements; when comparing which features are basic, critical, booster, or secondary; or when deciding where to reduce social risk, increase social stickiness, and prioritize improvements to multiplayer or community-facing systems.
Install
npx skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill game-design-social-satisfaction-matrix -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/game-design-social-satisfaction-matrix/ · 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-multiplayer-feature-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, live-ops layer, social system, or multiplayer concept for the quality and fit of its social design. Use when evaluating collaboration, competition, collaborate-to-compete structures, matchmaking, guilds/clubs, synchronous versus asynchronous play, realtime constraints, depth of social interaction, community formation, vanity/status systems, or how to add social play to a mostly single-player game.Design★ 86
- 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-player-need-satisfaction-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleAudit a game, feature, live-ops system, onboarding flow, progression loop, social feature, monetization flow, or return loop for player need satisfaction using Self-Determination Theory and the PENS lens. Use when evaluating whether a design is actually fun beyond surface KPIs, diagnosing weak retention or shallow engagement, comparing variants, identifying where a system denies autonomy, competence, or relatedness, or understanding whether a game feels emotionally nourishing or quietly depleting.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-systematizing-empathizing-auditStanestane/game-design-skills-bundleEvaluate a game, feature, system, UX flow, progression loop, live-ops mechanic, monetization surface, or design concept on two axes: systematizing and empathizing. Use when you want to understand whether a design is structurally logic-driven or emotionally player-attuned, what kind of player personas it is likely to attract or repel, and what practical consequences follow from that positioning without assuming one quadrant is universally best.Design★ 86
- game-design-reviewYuki001/game-dev-skillsReview, critique, compare, improve, or stress-test an existing game concept, GDD, mechanic, puzzle, economy, level, theme, emotional arc, interface, narrative, social feature, prototype, pitch, or playtest result. Use when the user asks what is weak, risky, unclear, unbalanced, contradictory, insufficiently engaging, or worth validating next in a game design. Produce evidence-based findings, explicit tradeoffs, and the smallest useful prototype or playtest experiment.Design★ 100
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in