← 返回 Skills 市场
stanestane

Game Design KPI Coverage Audit

作者 Stanislav Stankovic · GitHub ↗ · v1.0.0 · MIT-0
cross-platform ✓ 安全检测通过
82
总下载
0
收藏
0
当前安装
1
版本数
在 OpenClaw 中安装
/install game-design-kpi-coverage-audit
功能描述
Audit a game feature, roadmap candidate, UX improvement, support system, connective-tissue feature, or quality-of-life change for KPI coverage bias and measu...
使用说明 (SKILL.md)

Game Design KPI Coverage Audit

Check whether the evaluation framework is seeing the whole value of the feature, or only the parts that are easy to measure.

Use this skill when a feature is being judged mainly through directly attributable KPIs and you suspect that measurement logic is biasing the team toward flashy, self-contained systems while undervaluing connective tissue, UX, quality-of-life, enabling systems, or long-term structural work.

Read references/value-types.md when identifying what kind of value the feature creates. Read references/blind-spot-patterns.md when diagnosing common KPI-coverage failures. Read references/recommendation-patterns.md when deciding how to justify or evaluate hard-to-measure work.

What to produce

Produce:

  1. Feature read - what the proposal is and what role it plays
  2. Current KPI framing - what the team is measuring or expecting to measure
  3. Coverage diagnosis - what value is covered versus ignored by those KPIs
  4. Blind spots - what may be neglected because it is hard to measure directly
  5. Risk of mis-prioritization - what bad decisions may result from the current framing
  6. Evaluation recommendation - how the feature should be justified, monitored, or compared more fairly

Process

1. Identify the role of the feature

Clarify whether the proposal is mainly:

  • a standalone engagement feature
  • a monetization feature
  • a progression layer
  • a UX improvement
  • connective tissue between systems
  • quality-of-life work
  • support infrastructure for future features
  • a clarity, pacing, or usability improvement

2. Identify the current KPI story

Ask:

  • what metric is the team using to justify this feature?
  • is it tied to revenue, retention, engagement, conversion, economy balance, sentiment, or something else?
  • is the KPI direct, indirect, speculative, or absent?

3. Audit KPI coverage

Check whether the metric framing captures the actual value of the work. Look for value types such as:

  • direct monetization
  • direct engagement lift
  • retention support
  • reduced friction
  • improved comprehension
  • stronger connective tissue between systems
  • future feature enablement
  • long-term sustainability
  • reduced support burden or balancing burden

4. Identify blind spots

Common signs:

  • the feature is dismissed because it cannot move one headline KPI on its own
  • direct-revenue features are always favored over structural health
  • UX work is treated as optional because it lacks clean attribution
  • foundational work is postponed until crisis
  • enabling systems are undervalued because they mostly improve the performance of other features

5. Judge prioritization risk

Ask:

  • what happens if this feature is judged only by direct KPI lift?
  • is the team likely to underinvest in maintenance, UX, clarity, infrastructure, or connective tissue?
  • could the current framework systematically reward short-term visible wins over long-term health?

6. Recommend better evaluation

Possible moves:

  • use a mixed scorecard instead of one KPI
  • classify the feature as enabling or connective work rather than forcing a fake direct KPI
  • evaluate via downstream support of other systems
  • allocate protected capacity for high-value, hard-to-measure work
  • compare opportunity cost honestly rather than pretending everything must tie to one direct metric

Response structure

Feature Read

  • ...

Current KPI Framing

  • ...

Coverage Diagnosis

  • ...

Blind Spots

  • ...

Risk of Mis-Prioritization

  • ...

Recommendation

  • ...

Fast mode

  • What is this feature actually for?
  • What KPI is being used to justify it?
  • What important value is not being captured by that KPI?
  • What bad prioritization decision could this cause?
  • How should the team evaluate it more fairly?

Style rules

  • Do not dismiss KPIs; diagnose their limits.
  • Do not invent fake measurable certainty for support work.
  • Distinguish direct value from enabling value.
  • Prefer fairer framing over anti-metrics rhetoric.
  • Be specific about how blind spots distort roadmap decisions.

Working principle

Teams often prioritize what they can measure cleanly, not what matters most. Use this skill to expose where KPI logic is too narrow for the actual design value on the table.

安全使用建议
This is an instruction-only audit tool that uses only the included reference files and does not require credentials or installs. It appears coherent and low-risk, but consider what data you will feed it: if you supply sensitive internal metrics or proprietary roadmaps to the agent, those inputs could be exposed according to your environment's data-handling rules. If you want stricter control, limit the agent's autonomous invocation or avoid pasting sensitive dashboards and raw credentials into prompts.
功能分析
Type: OpenClaw Skill Name: game-design-kpi-coverage-audit Version: 1.0.0 The skill bundle is a purely informational framework for auditing game design KPIs and feature evaluation. It contains only Markdown instructions (SKILL.md) and reference documentation (references/value-types.md, etc.) without any executable code, network requests, or instructions that attempt to exfiltrate data or subvert the agent's behavior.
能力评估
Purpose & Capability
Name, description, and deliverables align with the required artifacts and included reference docs; there are no unexpected environment variables, binaries, or external services requested.
Instruction Scope
SKILL.md stays on-topic: it instructs the agent to read the bundled reference files and produce an audit (feature read, KPI framing, blind spots, recommendations). It does not request system-wide file access, credentials, or transmission to external endpoints.
Install Mechanism
No install spec or code files are included; this is an instruction-only skill so nothing will be written to disk or downloaded during install.
Credentials
The skill declares no required environment variables, credentials, or config paths; the actions described do not imply a need for secrets or unrelated service access.
Persistence & Privilege
always is false and model invocation is allowed (platform default). The skill does not request persistent system privileges or modifications to other skills' settings.
如何使用
  1. 确保已安装 OpenClaw(本地或 Docker 部署)
  2. 在对话框中输入安装命令:/install game-design-kpi-coverage-audit
  3. 安装完成后,直接呼叫该 Skill 的名称或使用 /game-design-kpi-coverage-audit 触发
  4. 根据 Skill 的参数说明提供必要输入,即可获得结构化输出
版本历史
v1.0.0
Initial release: audit KPI framing, measurement blind spots, and roadmap bias against connective-tissue or hard-to-measure feature work.
元数据
Slug game-design-kpi-coverage-audit
版本 1.0.0
许可证 MIT-0
累计安装 0
当前安装数 0
历史版本数 1
常见问题

Game Design KPI Coverage Audit 是什么?

Audit a game feature, roadmap candidate, UX improvement, support system, connective-tissue feature, or quality-of-life change for KPI coverage bias and measu... 它是一个面向 Claude Code / OpenClaw 的 AI Agent Skill 插件,目前累计下载 82 次。

如何安装 Game Design KPI Coverage Audit?

在 OpenClaw 或 Claude Code 对话框中运行命令「/install game-design-kpi-coverage-audit」即可一键安装,无需额外配置。

Game Design KPI Coverage Audit 是免费的吗?

是的,Game Design KPI Coverage Audit 完全免费,采用 MIT-0 许可证,可自由下载、安装和使用。

Game Design KPI Coverage Audit 支持哪些平台?

Game Design KPI Coverage Audit 跨平台运行,可在任意部署了 OpenClaw / Claude Code 的环境中使用(cross-platform)。

谁开发了 Game Design KPI Coverage Audit?

由 Stanislav Stankovic(@stanestane)开发并维护,当前版本 v1.0.0。

💬 留言讨论