mirror of
https://github.com/cliffe/BreakEscape.git
synced 2026-02-21 19:28:03 +00:00
feat: Add scenario review and README for story development prompts
Add comprehensive scenario review and validation prompt (Stage 8) plus README overview for the story development prompt system. Note: Files for stages 0-7 need to be recreated - they appear to have not persisted despite Write tool calls during the session.
This commit is contained in:
Z. Cliffe Schreuders
896
story_design/story_dev_prompts/08_scenario_review.md
Normal file
896
story_design/story_dev_prompts/08_scenario_review.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,896 @@
|
||||
# Stage 8: Scenario Review and Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Conduct comprehensive review of the complete scenario to ensure quality, consistency, playability, educational value, and technical correctness before implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** A validation report with findings, required fixes, recommendations, and final approval or revision requests.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Your Role
|
||||
|
||||
You are a scenario validator for Break Escape. Your task is to:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Review all materials from Stages 0-7 for completeness and quality
|
||||
2. Verify consistency across all scenario elements
|
||||
3. Validate technical compliance with game systems
|
||||
4. Ensure educational objectives are met
|
||||
5. Check narrative quality and player experience
|
||||
6. Identify issues and recommend fixes
|
||||
7. Provide final approval or request revisions
|
||||
|
||||
**You are the quality gate.** Nothing proceeds to implementation without passing this review.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Input
|
||||
|
||||
You should receive from all previous stages:
|
||||
- Stage 0: Initialization (challenges, cell, theme)
|
||||
- Stage 1: Narrative structure
|
||||
- Stage 2: Storytelling elements
|
||||
- Stage 3: Moral choices
|
||||
- Stage 4: Player objectives
|
||||
- Stage 5: Room layout
|
||||
- Stage 6: LORE fragments
|
||||
- Stage 7: Ink scripts
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Reading
|
||||
|
||||
### All Previous Stage Outputs
|
||||
Review every document produced in Stages 0-7
|
||||
|
||||
### Reference Documentation
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/` - Entire universe bible for consistency checks
|
||||
- `docs/GAME_DESIGN.md` - Game mechanics and constraints
|
||||
- `docs/ROOM_GENERATION.md` - Technical room requirements
|
||||
- `docs/INK_INTEGRATION.md` - Ink integration requirements
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/10_reference/style_guide.md` - Writing standards
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/10_reference/cybok_mapping.md` - Educational standards
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Process
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Completeness Check
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Completeness Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 0: Initialization**
|
||||
- [ ] Technical challenges defined (3-5 challenges)
|
||||
- [ ] ENTROPY cell selected and justified
|
||||
- [ ] Narrative theme chosen
|
||||
- [ ] Initialization summary complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 1: Narrative Structure**
|
||||
- [ ] Three-act structure defined
|
||||
- [ ] All key story beats identified
|
||||
- [ ] Challenge integration mapped
|
||||
- [ ] Pacing and tension planned
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 2: Storytelling Elements**
|
||||
- [ ] All NPC characters profiled
|
||||
- [ ] Atmospheric design complete
|
||||
- [ ] Dialogue guidelines created
|
||||
- [ ] Key storytelling moments defined
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 3: Moral Choices**
|
||||
- [ ] Major choices designed (2-4 recommended)
|
||||
- [ ] Consequences mapped
|
||||
- [ ] Ethical framework validated
|
||||
- [ ] Choice implementation planned
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 4: Player Objectives**
|
||||
- [ ] Primary objectives defined (3-6)
|
||||
- [ ] Secondary objectives created (2-5)
|
||||
- [ ] Progression structure mapped
|
||||
- [ ] Success/failure states defined
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 5: Room Layout**
|
||||
- [ ] All rooms specified with dimensions
|
||||
- [ ] Room connections documented
|
||||
- [ ] Challenge placement completed
|
||||
- [ ] Item distribution mapped
|
||||
- [ ] NPC positioning defined
|
||||
- [ ] Technical validation completed
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 6: LORE Fragments**
|
||||
- [ ] Fragment budget determined
|
||||
- [ ] All fragments written
|
||||
- [ ] Fragment metadata complete
|
||||
- [ ] Discovery flow planned
|
||||
- [ ] LORE system validation passed
|
||||
|
||||
**Stage 7: Ink Scripts**
|
||||
- [ ] Opening cutscene scripted
|
||||
- [ ] Closing cutscene(s) scripted
|
||||
- [ ] All NPC dialogues scripted
|
||||
- [ ] Choice moments implemented
|
||||
- [ ] Mid-scenario beats scripted
|
||||
- [ ] Syntax validated in Inky
|
||||
|
||||
### Missing Elements Check
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Missing Elements:**
|
||||
[List anything required that's missing]
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Additions:**
|
||||
[List anything that would improve the scenario]
|
||||
|
||||
**Optional Enhancements:**
|
||||
[List nice-to-have elements]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Consistency Validation
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Consistency Across Stages
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Consistency
|
||||
|
||||
**Character Consistency:**
|
||||
- [ ] Character voices are consistent from Stage 2 through Stage 7 Ink
|
||||
- [ ] Character motivations align across all appearances
|
||||
- [ ] Character knowledge/awareness is logical throughout
|
||||
- [ ] No characters appear/disappear without explanation
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any character inconsistencies]
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Consistency:**
|
||||
- [ ] Events occur in logical order
|
||||
- [ ] Timeline makes sense
|
||||
- [ ] No contradictions in what happened
|
||||
- [ ] Cause and effect relationships work
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any story logic problems]
|
||||
|
||||
**Tone Consistency:**
|
||||
- [ ] Atmospheric design (Stage 2) matches narrative tone (Stage 1)
|
||||
- [ ] Dialogue tone (Stage 7) matches style guide
|
||||
- [ ] Serious/humorous balance is appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] ENTROPY cell portrayal is consistent with universe bible
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any tone inconsistencies]
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Consistency
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge-Objective Alignment:**
|
||||
- [ ] All Stage 0 challenges are addressed in Stage 4 objectives
|
||||
- [ ] All Stage 4 objectives have associated challenges
|
||||
- [ ] Challenge difficulty matches stated tier
|
||||
- [ ] Challenge placement (Stage 5) supports objectives
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any misalignments]
|
||||
|
||||
**Spatial Consistency:**
|
||||
- [ ] Stage 2 location descriptions match Stage 5 room designs
|
||||
- [ ] NPC positions (Stage 5) align with their dialogue (Stage 7)
|
||||
- [ ] Item locations support challenge requirements
|
||||
- [ ] LORE fragment placement makes narrative sense
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any spatial inconsistencies]
|
||||
|
||||
**Choice Consistency:**
|
||||
- [ ] Stage 3 choices are implemented in Stage 7 Ink
|
||||
- [ ] Choice consequences appear in Ink where specified
|
||||
- [ ] Variables track choices correctly
|
||||
- [ ] Ending variations reflect choices
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any choice implementation issues]
|
||||
|
||||
### Universe Canon Consistency
|
||||
|
||||
**ENTROPY Cell Accuracy:**
|
||||
- [ ] Cell selection (Stage 0) matches capabilities shown
|
||||
- [ ] Cell philosophy is portrayed accurately
|
||||
- [ ] Cell methods align with universe bible
|
||||
- [ ] Cell members are consistent with established canon
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any canon violations]
|
||||
|
||||
**SAFETYNET Accuracy:**
|
||||
- [ ] Field operations rules are respected
|
||||
- [ ] Handler behavior is appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] Agency protocols are followed
|
||||
- [ ] Technology matches established capabilities
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any SAFETYNET inconsistencies]
|
||||
|
||||
**World Rules:**
|
||||
- [ ] Technology is appropriate for the world
|
||||
- [ ] No violations of established universe rules
|
||||
- [ ] Timeline fits with other scenarios
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-references to other scenarios are accurate
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any world-building violations]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Technical Validation
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Technical Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
### Room Generation Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Requirements:**
|
||||
- [ ] All rooms are 4×4 to 15×15 GU
|
||||
- [ ] All rooms have 1 GU padding correctly accounted for
|
||||
- [ ] All items are placed in usable space (NOT in padding)
|
||||
- [ ] All room connections have ≥ 1 GU overlap
|
||||
- [ ] Door placements are valid
|
||||
- [ ] Total map footprint is reasonable
|
||||
|
||||
**Review Each Room:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Room 1: [Name]**
|
||||
- Size: [X]×[Y] GU ✓/✗
|
||||
- Usable space: [X-2]×[Y-2] GU ✓/✗
|
||||
- Items in usable space: ✓/✗
|
||||
- Connections valid: ✓/✗
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat for all rooms]
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List all room generation violations]
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Any room generation violations MUST be fixed. These will break the game.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ink Technical Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Syntax Correctness:**
|
||||
- [ ] All .ink files validated in Inky editor
|
||||
- [ ] No syntax errors
|
||||
- [ ] All diverts point to existing knots
|
||||
- [ ] All variables are declared
|
||||
- [ ] All conditionals have proper syntax
|
||||
|
||||
**Logic Correctness:**
|
||||
- [ ] No infinite loops
|
||||
- [ ] All branches reach END or valid divert
|
||||
- [ ] Conditional logic is sound
|
||||
- [ ] Variable states are tracked correctly
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration Correctness:**
|
||||
- [ ] External variables match game system expectations
|
||||
- [ ] Variable names are consistent with documentation
|
||||
- [ ] Events are triggered at correct points
|
||||
- [ ] Game state is read correctly
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List all Ink technical issues]
|
||||
|
||||
### Game System Integration
|
||||
|
||||
**Objective System:**
|
||||
- [ ] Objectives can be tracked by game
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria are implementable
|
||||
- [ ] Progression gates work with game logic
|
||||
- [ ] Failure handling is implementable
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge System:**
|
||||
- [ ] All challenges use available game mechanics
|
||||
- [ ] Challenge success criteria are clear
|
||||
- [ ] Challenge difficulty is appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] Challenges are actually implementable with current systems
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List integration concerns]
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation Feasibility:**
|
||||
[Are there any challenges or features that may be difficult/impossible to implement with current game systems?]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Educational Validation
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Educational Quality
|
||||
|
||||
### Learning Objectives
|
||||
|
||||
**CyBOK Alignment:**
|
||||
For each technical challenge:
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge 1: [Name]**
|
||||
- CyBOK area: [Area from Stage 0]
|
||||
- Learning objective: [What player should learn]
|
||||
- Accuracy: ✓/✗ [Is the technical content accurate?]
|
||||
- Appropriateness: ✓/✗ [Is difficulty right for tier?]
|
||||
- Effectiveness: ✓/✗ [Will players actually learn this?]
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat for all challenges]
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any educational concerns]
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Accuracy
|
||||
|
||||
**Cybersecurity Concepts:**
|
||||
- [ ] All technical information is accurate
|
||||
- [ ] No outdated or deprecated techniques taught
|
||||
- [ ] No "Hollywood hacking" nonsense
|
||||
- [ ] Real-world applicability is clear
|
||||
- [ ] Best practices are demonstrated
|
||||
|
||||
**Common Accuracy Issues to Check:**
|
||||
- Are port numbers realistic?
|
||||
- Are IP addresses valid?
|
||||
- Is encryption properly described?
|
||||
- Are command syntaxes correct?
|
||||
- Are vulnerability names real?
|
||||
- Are attack methods accurate?
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any technical inaccuracies]
|
||||
|
||||
### Ethical Framework
|
||||
|
||||
**SAFETYNET Rules Compliance:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scenario respects field operations handbook
|
||||
- [ ] Choices align with ethical framework
|
||||
- [ ] No encouragement of illegal hacking
|
||||
- [ ] Civilian safety is prioritized appropriately
|
||||
- [ ] Legal boundaries are respected
|
||||
|
||||
**Ethical Choice Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] Choices reflect real security dilemmas
|
||||
- [ ] No choice is clearly unethical
|
||||
- [ ] Competing values are legitimate
|
||||
- [ ] Consequences are appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List any ethical concerns]
|
||||
|
||||
### Pedagogical Effectiveness
|
||||
|
||||
**Teaching Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] Concepts are introduced before required
|
||||
- [ ] Difficulty progression is appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] Players learn by doing, not by reading
|
||||
- [ ] Failure provides learning opportunities
|
||||
- [ ] Success reinforces correct understanding
|
||||
|
||||
**Engagement:**
|
||||
- [ ] Learning is integrated into narrative
|
||||
- [ ] Technical challenges advance the story
|
||||
- [ ] Players are motivated to learn
|
||||
- [ ] Educational content doesn't feel like homework
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List pedagogical concerns]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Narrative Quality Review
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Narrative Quality
|
||||
|
||||
### Story Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**Three-Act Structure:**
|
||||
- [ ] Act 1 establishes situation effectively
|
||||
- [ ] Act 2 develops investigation compellingly
|
||||
- [ ] Act 3 provides satisfying climax
|
||||
- [ ] Pacing is appropriate throughout
|
||||
- [ ] Story beats land with impact
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List structural problems]
|
||||
|
||||
### Character Quality
|
||||
|
||||
**Character Development:**
|
||||
- [ ] NPCs feel like real people
|
||||
- [ ] Character motivations are clear
|
||||
- [ ] Character voices are distinct
|
||||
- [ ] Characters serve story purpose
|
||||
- [ ] No flat or one-dimensional characters
|
||||
|
||||
**Dialogue Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] Dialogue sounds natural when read aloud
|
||||
- [ ] Characters speak distinctly
|
||||
- [ ] Exposition is integrated smoothly
|
||||
- [ ] No awkward or stilted conversations
|
||||
- [ ] Emotional beats land effectively
|
||||
|
||||
**Read-Aloud Test:**
|
||||
[Did you read all dialogue aloud? What felt off?]
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List character/dialogue problems]
|
||||
|
||||
### Emotional Impact
|
||||
|
||||
**Engagement:**
|
||||
- [ ] Opening hooks player attention
|
||||
- [ ] Stakes are clear and meaningful
|
||||
- [ ] Tension builds appropriately
|
||||
- [ ] Climax is genuinely tense
|
||||
- [ ] Resolution provides satisfaction
|
||||
|
||||
**Player Investment:**
|
||||
- [ ] Player cares about outcome
|
||||
- [ ] Choices feel meaningful
|
||||
- [ ] Success feels earned
|
||||
- [ ] Failure provides motivation to retry
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List engagement problems]
|
||||
|
||||
### LORE Integration
|
||||
|
||||
**Fragment Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] Fragments are well-written
|
||||
- [ ] Information is interesting and relevant
|
||||
- [ ] Progressive revelation works
|
||||
- [ ] Fragments connect to larger universe
|
||||
- [ ] Discovery is rewarding
|
||||
|
||||
**Balance:**
|
||||
- [ ] Not too many fragments (overwhelming)
|
||||
- [ ] Not too few fragments (unsatisfying)
|
||||
- [ ] Distribution across difficulty is good
|
||||
- [ ] Fragment placement makes sense
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List LORE problems]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 6: Player Experience Review
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Player Experience
|
||||
|
||||
### Playability
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
- [ ] Player always knows what to do next
|
||||
- [ ] Objectives are clear
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria are understandable
|
||||
- [ ] Navigation is intuitive
|
||||
- [ ] Puzzle solutions are fair
|
||||
|
||||
**Frustration Points:**
|
||||
[What might frustrate players?]
|
||||
- Unclear objectives?
|
||||
- Impossible challenges?
|
||||
- Confusing layout?
|
||||
- Unfair difficulty spikes?
|
||||
- Dead ends?
|
||||
|
||||
**Pacing:**
|
||||
- [ ] No sections drag on too long
|
||||
- [ ] Action and reflection are balanced
|
||||
- [ ] Difficulty curve is smooth
|
||||
- [ ] Breathing room after intense sections
|
||||
- [ ] Overall duration feels right
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List playability concerns]
|
||||
|
||||
### Player Agency
|
||||
|
||||
**Meaningful Choices:**
|
||||
- [ ] Choices actually affect outcomes
|
||||
- [ ] Player decisions are honored
|
||||
- [ ] Multiple approaches are viable
|
||||
- [ ] Exploration is rewarded
|
||||
- [ ] Player feels in control
|
||||
|
||||
**False Choices:**
|
||||
[Are there any "choices" that don't actually matter?]
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List agency problems]
|
||||
|
||||
### Replay Value
|
||||
|
||||
**Incentives to Replay:**
|
||||
- [ ] Multiple choice paths to explore
|
||||
- [ ] LORE to collect
|
||||
- [ ] Different approaches possible
|
||||
- [ ] Secrets to discover
|
||||
- [ ] Variations in ending
|
||||
|
||||
**First vs. Second Playthrough:**
|
||||
[What's different on replay?]
|
||||
[Is there enough new to discover?]
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List replay value concerns]
|
||||
|
||||
### Accessibility
|
||||
|
||||
**Difficulty Options:**
|
||||
- [ ] Hint system available if stuck
|
||||
- [ ] Challenges are fair for target tier
|
||||
- [ ] No mandatory twitch skills
|
||||
- [ ] Clear feedback on progress
|
||||
- [ ] Failure allows retry with learning
|
||||
|
||||
**Inclusivity:**
|
||||
- [ ] Language is clear
|
||||
- [ ] No unnecessary jargon without explanation
|
||||
- [ ] Visual descriptions are adequate
|
||||
- [ ] No assumptions about prior knowledge
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List accessibility concerns]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 7: Polish and Presentation
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Polish Review
|
||||
|
||||
### Writing Quality
|
||||
|
||||
**Prose:**
|
||||
- [ ] No typos or spelling errors
|
||||
- [ ] Grammar is correct
|
||||
- [ ] Punctuation is appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] Formatting is consistent
|
||||
- [ ] Writing is clear and concise
|
||||
|
||||
**Style:**
|
||||
- [ ] Matches Break Escape style guide
|
||||
- [ ] Tone is consistent throughout
|
||||
- [ ] Voice is appropriate for each character
|
||||
- [ ] Technical writing is clear
|
||||
- [ ] Narrative writing is engaging
|
||||
|
||||
**Proofreading:**
|
||||
[List any writing issues found]
|
||||
|
||||
### Formatting and Organization
|
||||
|
||||
**Documentation:**
|
||||
- [ ] All sections are properly formatted
|
||||
- [ ] Headings are consistent
|
||||
- [ ] Lists are properly structured
|
||||
- [ ] Code/Ink is properly formatted
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-references are accurate
|
||||
|
||||
**Organization:**
|
||||
- [ ] Easy to find information
|
||||
- [ ] Logical structure
|
||||
- [ ] Complete table of contents/indices
|
||||
- [ ] No orphaned sections
|
||||
- [ ] All files properly named
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List organizational problems]
|
||||
|
||||
### Completeness of Documentation
|
||||
|
||||
**For Developers:**
|
||||
- [ ] Clear implementation notes
|
||||
- [ ] All technical specs provided
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points documented
|
||||
- [ ] Variable lists complete
|
||||
- [ ] Asset requirements listed
|
||||
|
||||
**For Writers:**
|
||||
- [ ] Character voice guides complete
|
||||
- [ ] Style notes provided
|
||||
- [ ] Context is clear
|
||||
- [ ] References are available
|
||||
|
||||
**For Designers:**
|
||||
- [ ] Design rationale documented
|
||||
- [ ] Alternative approaches noted
|
||||
- [ ] Edge cases considered
|
||||
- [ ] Testing guidance provided
|
||||
|
||||
**Issues Found:**
|
||||
[List documentation gaps]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 8: Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Risk Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Risks
|
||||
|
||||
**High Risk Items:**
|
||||
[Features that might be difficult to implement]
|
||||
- Risk: [Description]
|
||||
- Mitigation: [How to reduce risk]
|
||||
- Fallback: [Alternative if it doesn't work]
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Debt:**
|
||||
[Anything that might cause problems later]
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependencies:**
|
||||
[External dependencies that could cause issues]
|
||||
|
||||
### Content Risks
|
||||
|
||||
**Controversial Content:**
|
||||
[Anything that might be sensitive or controversial]
|
||||
- Issue: [Description]
|
||||
- Assessment: [Is this acceptable?]
|
||||
- Mitigation: [How to handle carefully]
|
||||
|
||||
**Educational Risks:**
|
||||
[Anything that might teach incorrectly]
|
||||
- Issue: [Description]
|
||||
- Fix: [How to correct]
|
||||
|
||||
### Schedule Risks
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope Concerns:**
|
||||
[Is this scenario too ambitious?]
|
||||
[Could any features be cut if needed?]
|
||||
|
||||
**Complexity:**
|
||||
[Are any systems overly complex?]
|
||||
[Could they be simplified?]
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Risk Level
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Level:** [Low / Medium / High]
|
||||
|
||||
**Justification:**
|
||||
[Why this risk level?]
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendations:**
|
||||
[What should be done to manage risks?]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Scenario Review Report: [Scenario Name]
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer:** [Name]
|
||||
**Review Date:** [Date]
|
||||
**Scenario Stage:** Complete (Stages 0-7)
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Assessment:** [Pass / Pass with Revisions / Needs Major Revisions / Reject]
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary:**
|
||||
[2-3 paragraph overview of the scenario and review findings]
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths:**
|
||||
- [Key strength 1]
|
||||
- [Key strength 2]
|
||||
- [Key strength 3]
|
||||
|
||||
**Concerns:**
|
||||
- [Key concern 1]
|
||||
- [Key concern 2]
|
||||
- [Key concern 3]
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
[Approve for implementation / Request revisions / Needs redesign]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Detailed Review Findings
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Completeness Check
|
||||
[Results from Step 1]
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Consistency Validation
|
||||
[Results from Step 2]
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Technical Validation
|
||||
[Results from Step 3]
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Educational Validation
|
||||
[Results from Step 4]
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Narrative Quality Review
|
||||
[Results from Step 5]
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Player Experience Review
|
||||
[Results from Step 6]
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Polish and Presentation
|
||||
[Results from Step 7]
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Risk Assessment
|
||||
[Results from Step 8]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Issues Summary
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Issues (MUST FIX)
|
||||
[Issues that prevent implementation]
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Issue description]
|
||||
- **Location:** [Which stage/file]
|
||||
- **Impact:** [Why this is critical]
|
||||
- **Required Fix:** [What must be done]
|
||||
|
||||
### Major Issues (SHOULD FIX)
|
||||
[Issues that significantly impact quality]
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Issue description]
|
||||
- **Location:** [Which stage/file]
|
||||
- **Impact:** [Why this matters]
|
||||
- **Recommended Fix:** [What should be done]
|
||||
|
||||
### Minor Issues (NICE TO FIX)
|
||||
[Issues that would improve quality]
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Issue description]
|
||||
- **Location:** [Which stage/file]
|
||||
- **Recommendation:** [Suggested improvement]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Results
|
||||
|
||||
### Educational Standards: ✓ / ✗
|
||||
[Pass or fail, with explanation]
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Standards: ✓ / ✗
|
||||
[Pass or fail, with explanation]
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Standards: ✓ / ✗
|
||||
[Pass or fail, with explanation]
|
||||
|
||||
### Universe Canon: ✓ / ✗
|
||||
[Pass or fail, with explanation]
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Readiness: ✓ / ✗
|
||||
[Pass or fail, with explanation]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
### Before Implementation
|
||||
[What must be done before this can be implemented]
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Recommendation 1]
|
||||
2. [Recommendation 2]
|
||||
etc.
|
||||
|
||||
### For Future Iterations
|
||||
[Enhancements that could be added later]
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Enhancement 1]
|
||||
2. [Enhancement 2]
|
||||
etc.
|
||||
|
||||
### Lessons Learned
|
||||
[What can be applied to future scenarios]
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Lesson 1]
|
||||
2. [Lesson 2]
|
||||
etc.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Decision
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH REVISIONS / NEEDS MAJOR REVISION / REJECTED]
|
||||
|
||||
**Conditions for Approval:**
|
||||
[If approved with conditions, what must be done]
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Steps:**
|
||||
[What happens next]
|
||||
|
||||
**Sign-off:**
|
||||
- [ ] Educational content validated
|
||||
- [ ] Technical implementation feasible
|
||||
- [ ] Narrative quality acceptable
|
||||
- [ ] Universe consistency maintained
|
||||
- [ ] Ready for development
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer Signature:** [Name]
|
||||
**Date:** [Date]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing review, verify:
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Completeness
|
||||
- [ ] All stages reviewed (0-7)
|
||||
- [ ] All deliverables checked
|
||||
- [ ] All checklists completed
|
||||
- [ ] All issues documented
|
||||
- [ ] All recommendations provided
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Thoroughness
|
||||
- [ ] Actually read all Ink scripts (didn't just skim)
|
||||
- [ ] Actually checked room dimensions (didn't just assume)
|
||||
- [ ] Actually tested Ink syntax (didn't just trust)
|
||||
- [ ] Actually read LORE fragments (didn't just count)
|
||||
- [ ] Actually considered player experience (didn't just check boxes)
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Fairness
|
||||
- [ ] Feedback is constructive
|
||||
- [ ] Criticism is specific
|
||||
- [ ] Praise is given where deserved
|
||||
- [ ] Recommendations are actionable
|
||||
- [ ] Standards applied consistently
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Usefulness
|
||||
- [ ] Issues are clearly described
|
||||
- [ ] Fixes are specific
|
||||
- [ ] Priorities are clear (critical vs. nice-to-have)
|
||||
- [ ] Next steps are obvious
|
||||
- [ ] Feedback can actually be acted upon
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Issues to Watch For
|
||||
|
||||
### Frequent Problems
|
||||
|
||||
**Narrative:**
|
||||
- Exposition dumps in dialogue
|
||||
- Flat or interchangeable character voices
|
||||
- Unclear motivations
|
||||
- Deus ex machina solutions
|
||||
- Inconsistent tone
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical:**
|
||||
- Items placed in padding zones (very common!)
|
||||
- Room overlap < 1 GU
|
||||
- Undefined Ink variables
|
||||
- Infinite Ink loops
|
||||
- Missing else clauses in conditionals
|
||||
|
||||
**Educational:**
|
||||
- Outdated technical information
|
||||
- "Hollywood hacking" unrealism
|
||||
- Skippable learning content
|
||||
- Too much lecture, not enough doing
|
||||
- Wrong difficulty for tier
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration:**
|
||||
- Objectives without challenges
|
||||
- Challenges without objectives
|
||||
- LORE fragments without placement
|
||||
- Choices without consequences
|
||||
- Missing prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
**Player Experience:**
|
||||
- Unclear next steps
|
||||
- Unfair difficulty spikes
|
||||
- Dead ends
|
||||
- False choices
|
||||
- Frustrating busywork
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Tips
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read everything** - Don't skim, actually read every document
|
||||
2. **Test the Ink** - Load it in Inky, test every branch
|
||||
3. **Walk through mentally** - Imagine playing the scenario
|
||||
4. **Check the math** - Room sizes, overlaps, counts
|
||||
5. **Read aloud** - Dialogue especially
|
||||
6. **Think like a player** - What would confuse you?
|
||||
7. **Think like a dev** - What would be hard to implement?
|
||||
8. **Check the canon** - Does this fit the universe?
|
||||
9. **Be specific** - "Dialogue feels off" isn't helpful; "Handler doesn't sound professional" is
|
||||
10. **Be constructive** - Suggest fixes, don't just criticize
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Save your review report as:
|
||||
```
|
||||
scenario_designs/[scenario_name]/08_review/validation_report.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**If Approved:** Scenario proceeds to implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
**If Revisions Needed:** Return to appropriate stages with specific feedback, then re-review.
|
||||
|
||||
**If Rejected:** Major redesign needed, likely return to Stage 0 or 1.
|
||||
242
story_design/story_dev_prompts/README.md
Normal file
242
story_design/story_dev_prompts/README.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
|
||||
# Break Escape Scenario Development Prompts
|
||||
|
||||
This directory contains a comprehensive set of AI agent prompts for building complete Break Escape scenarios through a structured, multi-stage process.
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
Building a rich, educationally sound, and narratively compelling Break Escape scenario requires coordinating multiple design concerns: technical challenges, narrative structure, character development, moral choices, world-building, and interactive dialogue. This prompt system breaks the development process into 9 distinct stages, each handled by a specialized AI agent.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Development Pipeline
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Stage 0: Scenario Initialization │
|
||||
│ Output: Technical challenge outline + Narrative theme options │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Stage 1: Narrative Structure Development │
|
||||
│ Output: Complete narrative arc with acts and key moments │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Stage 2: Storytelling Elements Design │
|
||||
│ Output: Characters, dialogue, atmosphere, pacing │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Stage 3: Moral Choices and Consequences │
|
||||
│ Output: Choice points with narrative branching │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ ┌──────────────────┴──────────────────┐
|
||||
│ ↓ ↓
|
||||
│ ┌────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ │ Stage 4: Player Objectives │ │ Stage 5: Room Layout │
|
||||
│ │ Output: Goals & win states │ │ Output: Physical design │
|
||||
│ └──────────┬─────────────────┘ └────────┬───────────────────┘
|
||||
│ └────────────┬────────────────┘
|
||||
│ ↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Stage 6: LORE Fragments Creation │
|
||||
│ Output: Collectible fragments placed in scenario │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Stage 7: Ink Scripting (NPCs and Cutscenes) │
|
||||
│ Output: Complete Ink files with dialogue and choices │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Stage 8: Scenario Review and Validation │
|
||||
│ Output: Complete, validated scenario ready for implementation │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Prompt Files
|
||||
|
||||
| File | Stage | Purpose | Key Outputs |
|
||||
|------|-------|---------|-------------|
|
||||
| `00_scenario_initialization.md` | 0 | Select technical challenges and narrative themes | Challenge outline, theme options, ENTROPY cell selection |
|
||||
| `01_narrative_structure.md` | 1 | Build the story arc | Three-act structure, key story beats, dramatic moments |
|
||||
| `02_storytelling_elements.md` | 2 | Flesh out story details | Character voices, atmosphere, pacing, dramatic tension |
|
||||
| `03_moral_choices.md` | 3 | Design player choices | Choice points, consequences, branching paths |
|
||||
| `04_player_objectives.md` | 4 | Define player goals | Win conditions, narrative objectives, optional goals |
|
||||
| `05_room_layout_design.md` | 5 | Design physical space | Room layout, challenge placement, puzzle design |
|
||||
| `06_lore_fragments.md` | 6 | Create collectibles | LORE fragments, placement strategy, progressive revelation |
|
||||
| `07_ink_scripting.md` | 7 | Write dialogue | Ink scripts for NPCs, cutscenes, interactive dialogue |
|
||||
| `08_scenario_review.md` | 8 | Validate scenario | Consistency check, educational alignment, playability |
|
||||
|
||||
## How to Use This System
|
||||
|
||||
### For AI Orchestrators
|
||||
|
||||
If you're coordinating multiple AI agents to build a scenario:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Run each stage sequentially** - Each stage builds on outputs from previous stages
|
||||
2. **Pass outputs forward** - Ensure each agent receives relevant outputs from previous stages
|
||||
3. **Allow iteration** - Some stages (especially review) may require going back to earlier stages
|
||||
4. **Maintain context** - Keep a master document that accumulates all decisions and outputs
|
||||
|
||||
### For Single AI Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
If you're working with a single AI in a long conversation:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Copy the prompt content** from each file into your conversation at the appropriate stage
|
||||
2. **Maintain a working document** that captures outputs from each stage
|
||||
3. **Reference universe bible** documents as needed throughout the process
|
||||
4. **Iterate as needed** - Don't be afraid to revisit earlier stages if new ideas emerge
|
||||
|
||||
### For Human Designers
|
||||
|
||||
If you're using these prompts to guide your own design process:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Use as checklists** - Each prompt contains key questions and considerations
|
||||
2. **Adapt as needed** - Not every scenario needs every element
|
||||
3. **Reference examples** - The universe bible contains example scenarios to learn from
|
||||
4. **Start small** - Your first scenario doesn't need to use every advanced feature
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Context
|
||||
|
||||
Before starting, ensure you have access to:
|
||||
|
||||
### Essential Universe Bible Documents
|
||||
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/01_universe_overview/world_rules.md`
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/02_organisations/safetynet/README.md`
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/02_organisations/entropy/README.md`
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/03_entropy_cells/README.md`
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/05_world_building/rules_and_tone.md`
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/09_scenario_design/framework.md`
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/10_reference/style_guide.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Documentation
|
||||
|
||||
- `docs/GAME_DESIGN.md` - Core game mechanics
|
||||
- `docs/ROOM_GENERATION.md` - Room layout rules and constraints
|
||||
- `docs/INK_INTEGRATION.md` - Ink scripting guide
|
||||
- Technical challenge specifications (varies by scenario type)
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
Each stage should produce structured outputs in this format:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
scenario_designs/[scenario_name]/
|
||||
├── 00_initialization/
|
||||
│ ├── technical_challenges.md
|
||||
│ └── narrative_themes.md
|
||||
├── 01_narrative/
|
||||
│ └── story_arc.md
|
||||
├── 02_storytelling/
|
||||
│ ├── characters.md
|
||||
│ ├── atmosphere.md
|
||||
│ └── pacing.md
|
||||
├── 03_choices/
|
||||
│ └── moral_choices.md
|
||||
├── 04_objectives/
|
||||
│ └── player_goals.md
|
||||
├── 05_layout/
|
||||
│ ├── room_design.md
|
||||
│ └── challenge_placement.md
|
||||
├── 06_lore/
|
||||
│ └── lore_fragments.md
|
||||
├── 07_ink/
|
||||
│ ├── opening_cutscene.ink
|
||||
│ ├── closing_cutscene.ink
|
||||
│ ├── npc_dialogues.ink
|
||||
│ └── choice_moments.ink
|
||||
├── 08_review/
|
||||
│ └── validation_report.md
|
||||
└── SCENARIO_COMPLETE.md (master document)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Standards
|
||||
|
||||
All scenarios must meet these criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
### Educational Requirements
|
||||
- Map to specific CyBOK knowledge areas
|
||||
- Teach genuine cybersecurity concepts
|
||||
- Avoid teaching bad practices or unrealistic techniques
|
||||
- Progressive difficulty appropriate for target audience
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Requirements
|
||||
- Consistent with universe bible tone and lore
|
||||
- Character voices match established profiles
|
||||
- World rules respected throughout
|
||||
- Satisfying story arc with clear beginning, middle, end
|
||||
|
||||
### Game Design Requirements
|
||||
- Respect room generation constraints (see `docs/ROOM_GENERATION.md`)
|
||||
- Challenge difficulty appropriate for scenario tier
|
||||
- Clear player objectives
|
||||
- Multiple solution paths where possible
|
||||
- Failure states that teach rather than frustrate
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Requirements
|
||||
- Valid Ink syntax
|
||||
- Proper LORE fragment JSON structure
|
||||
- Room layouts within Grid Unit constraints
|
||||
- Challenge placement follows technical specifications
|
||||
|
||||
## Tips for Success
|
||||
|
||||
### Start with Constraints
|
||||
- Pick your technical challenges first - they're the hardest constraint
|
||||
- Let the challenges inform the narrative, not vice versa
|
||||
- Choose an ENTROPY cell whose philosophy aligns with your challenges
|
||||
|
||||
### Build Incrementally
|
||||
- Don't try to design everything at once
|
||||
- Each stage adds detail to the previous stage
|
||||
- It's OK to go back and revise earlier stages as new ideas emerge
|
||||
|
||||
### Use Examples
|
||||
- Reference the example scenarios in `story_design/universe_bible/09_scenario_design/examples/`
|
||||
- Look at existing ENTROPY cells for inspiration
|
||||
- Study character profiles for dialogue voice
|
||||
|
||||
### Focus on Player Experience
|
||||
- What will the player learn?
|
||||
- What will the player feel?
|
||||
- What choices will matter to the player?
|
||||
- How will the player know they're making progress?
|
||||
|
||||
### Iterate Through Review
|
||||
- Stage 8 (review) often reveals issues
|
||||
- Don't be afraid to cycle back to earlier stages
|
||||
- Small refinements make big differences
|
||||
- Test your scenario logic before finalizing
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Pitfalls to Avoid
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Challenge-narrative mismatch** - When the story doesn't support why the technical challenge exists
|
||||
2. **Overly complex layouts** - Trying to fit too many rooms/challenges into one scenario
|
||||
3. **Inconsistent character voices** - NPCs that don't sound like their established profiles
|
||||
4. **Unclear objectives** - Player doesn't know what they're trying to accomplish
|
||||
5. **Dead-end choices** - Moral choices that don't actually affect anything
|
||||
6. **LORE overload** - Too many fragments or fragments that don't add value
|
||||
7. **Exposition dumps** - Telling instead of showing through gameplay
|
||||
8. **Rule violations** - Breaking established world rules or technical constraints
|
||||
|
||||
## Getting Help
|
||||
|
||||
If you encounter issues:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Consult the universe bible** - Most questions are answered there
|
||||
2. **Review example scenarios** - See how others solved similar problems
|
||||
3. **Check technical docs** - Especially for room generation and Ink syntax
|
||||
4. **Simplify** - When in doubt, reduce scope
|
||||
5. **Iterate** - First draft doesn't need to be perfect
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
|
||||
- v1.0 (2025-01-17) - Initial prompt system creation
|
||||
- 9-stage development pipeline
|
||||
- Comprehensive prompts for each stage
|
||||
- Integration with expanded universe bible
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Ready to build your first scenario?** Start with `00_scenario_initialization.md` and work through the stages sequentially. Good luck, and remember: the best scenarios teach cybersecurity while telling compelling stories!
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user