Claude Code Game Studios

Turn a single Claude Code session into a full game development studio.
49 agents. 74 skills. One coordinated AI team.

---

Why This Exists

Building a game solo with AI is powerful — but a single chat session has no structure. No one stops you from hardcoding magic numbers, skipping design docs, or writing spaghetti code. There's no QA pass, no design review, no one asking "does this actually fit the game's vision?"

Claude Code Game Studios solves this by giving your AI session the structure of a real studio. Instead of one general-purpose assistant, you get 49 specialized agents organized into a studio hierarchy — directors who guard the vision, department leads who own their domains, and specialists who do the hands-on work. Each agent has defined responsibilities, escalation paths, and quality gates.

The result: you still make every decision, but now you have a team that asks the right questions, catches mistakes early, and keeps your project organized from first brainstorm to launch.

---

Table of Contents

• What's Included
• Studio Hierarchy
• Slash Commands
• Does it produce games, or documents?
• Getting Started
• Configuration
• Upgrading
• Project Structure
• How It Works
• Design Philosophy
• Customization
• Platform Support
• Community
• Supporting This Project
• License

---

What's Included

Category	Count	Description
Agents	49	Specialized subagents across design, programming, art, audio, narrative, QA, and production
Skills	74	Slash commands for every workflow phase (/start, /design-system, /create-epics, /create-stories, /dev-story, /story-done, etc.)
Hooks	12	Automated validation on commits, pushes, asset changes, session lifecycle, agent audit trail, and gap detection
Rules	13	Path-scoped coding standards enforced when editing gameplay, engine, AI, UI, network code, and more
Templates	39	Document templates for GDDs, UX specs, ADRs, sprint plans, HUD design, accessibility, and more

Studio Hierarchy

Agents are organized into three tiers, matching how real studios operate:

Tier 1 — Directors
  creative-director    technical-director    producer

Tier 2 — Department Leads
  game-designer        lead-programmer       art-director
  audio-director       narrative-director    qa-lead
  release-manager      localization-lead

Tier 3 — Specialists
  gameplay-programmer  engine-programmer     ai-programmer
  network-programmer   tools-programmer      ui-programmer
  systems-designer     level-designer        economy-designer
  technical-artist     sound-designer        writer
  world-builder        ux-designer           prototyper
  performance-analyst  devops-engineer       analytics-engineer
  security-engineer    qa-tester             accessibility-specialist
  live-ops-designer    community-manager

Each agent declares a model in its frontmatter: the three directors ask for Opus, lead-programmer and fifteen specialists name Sonnet, and the remaining thirty inherit your session's model. Treat the tiers as seniority of role, not as a billing plan — most of the studio runs on whatever model you are already using.

Engine Specialists

The template includes agent sets for all three major engines. Use the set that matches your project:

Engine	Lead Agent	Sub-Specialists
Godot 4	godot-specialist	GDScript, Shaders, GDExtension
Unity	unity-specialist	DOTS/ECS, Shaders/VFX, Addressables, UI Toolkit
Unreal Engine 5	unreal-specialist	GAS, Blueprints, Replication, UMG/CommonUI

Slash Commands

Type / in Claude Code to access all 74 skills:

Onboarding & Navigation /start /help /project-stage-detect /setup-engine /adopt /settings

Game Design /brainstorm /map-systems /design-system /quick-design /review-all-gdds /propagate-design-change

Art & Assets /art-bible /asset-spec /asset-audit

UX & Interface Design /ux-design /ux-review

Architecture /create-architecture /architecture-decision /architecture-review /create-control-manifest

Stories & Sprints /create-epics /create-stories /dev-story /sprint-plan /sprint-status /story-readiness /story-done /estimate

Reviews & Analysis /design-review /code-review /balance-check /content-audit /scope-check /perf-profile /tech-debt /gate-check /consistency-check /security-audit

QA & Testing /qa-plan /smoke-check /soak-test /regression-suite /test-setup /test-helpers /test-evidence-review /test-flakiness /skill-test /skill-improve

Production /milestone-review /retrospective /bug-report /bug-triage /reverse-document /playtest-report

Release /release-checklist /launch-checklist /changelog /patch-notes /hotfix /day-one-patch

Creative & Content /prototype /vertical-slice /onboard /localize

Team Orchestration (coordinate multiple agents on a single feature) /team-combat /team-narrative /team-ui /team-release /team-polish /team-audio /team-level /team-live-ops /team-qa

Does it produce games, or documents?

A fair question, and the answer is a measurement rather than a sample project. Four games were built from one brief at different modes.rigor levels and the documents each wrote before its first line of game code were counted:

modes.rigor	Docs before first line of game code	Time
minimal	1 (the one-page brief)	0 min
standard	30	58 min

All of them produced a running, tested game. Two blind reviewers and a human playtest then ranked the standard build last — the extra 29 documents bought traceability, not a better game.

It runs the game and looks at it

The measurement above is about cost. The other half is whether the thing works, and for a game that means someone has to look at it — a passing test says nothing about a menu drawn off-screen. So a story that changes anything the player sees is not closed until the game has been launched, observed, and a screenshot retained in production/qa/evidence/. A parse check is not a run. This holds at every rigor level, including minimal, where automated tests are waived but the look is not.

The games themselves are deliberately not shipped he