Orchestrate the live-ops team — live-ops-designer, economy-designer, analytics-engineer, community-manager, writer — for a season or live event.
复制下面这句话,粘贴给 Claude Code、Codex、Cursor 等 AI 编程工具,它会读取安装说明并在你确认后完成安装。
请阅读 https://ai.atlankj.com/install/asset/gh-team-live-ops-5694c177f799 ,按照其中的说明把「team-live-ops」安装到你(当前 AI 工具)中。执行前先告诉我将运行的命令和写入的位置,等我确认。
查看 AI 将读取的安装说明正在读取 GitHub 原文…
内容来自 GitHub 原始文件,由原作者维护。在 GitHub 查看
Argument check: If no season name or event description is provided, output:
"Usage:
/team-live-ops [season name or event description]— Provide the name or description of the season or live event to plan." Then stop immediately without spawning any subagents or reading any files.
When this skill is invoked with a valid argument, orchestrate the live-ops team through a structured planning pipeline.
Decision Points: At each phase transition, use AskUserQuestion to present
the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
In collaborative mode, the user must approve before moving to the next phase.
In guided mode the pipeline advances automatically unless a phase is BLOCKED;
in autonomous mode it runs end to end, recording each phase outcome via
log_decision. Decisions in automation_always_ask categories
(is_always_ask_category helper) always prompt regardless of mode. See
.claude/docs/automation-modes.md.
!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,team.size
Resolved above — use as-is; --review overrides review_mode. No block →
defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.
review_mode sets gate depth:
full — spawn all director and lead gates as describedlean — skip director gates unless they are PHASE-GATE type (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE)solo — skip all director gate spawning entirely; run the skill without any agent gatesautomation drives the Decision Points note above. See the Decision Points note above and
.claude/docs/automation-modes.md for how each mode changes pipeline behavior.
team.size: which agents are active (orthogonal to review_mode gate-depth and workflow docs).
individual (default): live-ops-designer + economy-designer. Other agents consulted via these two, not spawned separately.small: + analytics-engineer + community-manager (the full pipeline as documented).studio: + writer + narrative-director + per-season reviews.
Directors (CD/TD/PR) still spawn at phase gates regardless of size; a non-core agent needed at individual routes through the nearest active core agent with an informational note. "Phase gate" means any phase that ends in an AskUserQuestion decision point before the pipeline advances — not every phase. Apply the test literally: if the phase below has no decision point, it is not a gate, and an agent restricted to "phase gates only" is not spawned for it. This active-set scoping applies throughout the pipeline below: any phase that names an agent outside the active set routes through the nearest core agent rather than spawning it.Announce the active set before Phase 1 — never let the collapse be silent.
Before spawning anything, state in one line which agents this run will actually
spawn, and which the pipeline below names but will not spawn at the resolved
team.size. For example:
Active set (team.size: <resolved>): <the agents listed for that size above>.Not spawned this run: <every other agent this pipeline names> — consultedthrough <nearest active core agent>. Raise team.size (or modes.rigor) to widen.
Fill it from the team.size list directly above and the agents this file's own
pipeline names — not from an example. Both sets differ per orchestrator.
The pipeline below reads as a multi-agent fan-out and at the shipped default it
is one or two agents — team-release names eight and runs one, team-narrative
names six across five phases and runs writer alone. The collapse is correct:
team.size is rigor-fronted and the narrow default is the token lever, measured
at roughly 10x. What was wrong is that nothing said so, so a reader could not
distinguish a correctly-collapsed run from a broken pipeline, and the per-agent
"routes through the nearest core agent with an informational note" rule above
fires at routing time and never states the shape of the run as a whole.
This is the same rule as the skipped-check reporting elsewhere in this file: a constraint that is enforced but never surfaced is indistinguishable, to the person reading the output, from one that was never enforced.
Use the Agent tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
subagent_type: live-ops-designer — Season/event structure and retention mechanicssubagent_type: economy-designer — Live economy balance and reward pricingsubagent_type: analytics-engineer — Success metrics, A/B tests, event instrumentationsubagent_type: community-manager — Player-facing communication and messagingsubagent_type: narrative-director — Seasonal theme and narrative framingsubagent_type: writer — All player-facing text: event descriptions, item names, copyBrief each agent — do not dump context. Read the shared inputs once and pass a distilled brief inline: the lines each agent actually needs, never a file path for a document you have already read (an agent handed a path re-reads the whole file). Pass a path only for a document you have not read and only that agent needs.
End every agent prompt with a return contract: "Write your full output to [path] — that named path is your write authorisation under the bounded exception below, so write it without a separate approval prompt. Return only (1) the path written, (2) a ≤5-bullet summary of decisions, (3) any BLOCKED/CONCERNS items, one line each. Do not restate the documents you read." Without it, an agent returns everything it read back into this session.
Why this does not violate the Collaboration Protocol.
CLAUDE.mdrequires an agent to ask "May I write this to [filepath]?" before Write/Edit. A subagent spawned here writes without asking, and that is a deliberate, bounded exception rather than an oversight — the same call already made forconsistency-checkappending toactive.md. The exception holds only when all three are true: (1) the path is one you named in the prompt, so the user approved the destination when they approved the phase; (2) it is a new artifact underproduction/,docs/ortests/, never an edit to existing source or config; (3) the phase that produced it is itself gated by anAskUserQuestionbefore the pipeline advances. Outside those three, the agent must ask. Do not "fix" this by asking per subagent — a prompt per agent per phase makes an orchestrator unusable, which is why the exception exists.
Launch independent agents in parallel where the pipeline allows it (Phases 3 and 4 can run simultaneously).
Delegate to live-ops-designer:
Delegate to narrative-director:
Delegate to economy-designer:
design/live-ops/economy-rules.mdDelegate to analytics-engineer:
Delegate in parallel:
Delegate to community-manager:
Collect outputs from all phases and present a consolidated season plan:
Present a summary to the user with:
design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md
design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md not found. Economy design was not reviewed against an ethics policy. Recommend creating one before production begins." Include this flag in the season design output document. Add to next steps: create design/live-ops/ethics-policy.md.AskUserQuestion with options: revise economy design / override with documented rationale / cancel. If user chooses to revise: re-spawn economy-designer to produce a corrected design, then return to Phase 7 review. If user selects Cancel: end with Verdict: BLOCKED — "Live ops design cancelled due to unresolved ethics violation. Resolve the flagged issues and re-run /team-live-ops."Ask the user to approve the season plan before delegating to production teams. Issue the COMPLETE verdict only after the user approves and no unresolved ethics violations remain. If an ethics violation is unresolved, end with Verdict: BLOCKED.
All documents save to design/live-ops/ — but the orchestrator asks before
writing them. design/ is NOT one of the three directories the bounded write
exception covers (production/, docs/, tests/), so a sub-agent handed one of
these paths must prompt. Do not widen the exception to silence that.
Follow team-level's pattern instead: sub-agents write their working artifacts
under production/, where the exception does reach them; you compile the
final documents and ask via AskUserQuestion — "May I write the season plan to
design/live-ops/…?" — writing them only on approval.
Paths:
seasons/S[N]_[name].md — Season design document (from Phase 1-3)seasons/S[N]_[name]_analytics.md — Analytics plan (from Phase 4)seasons/S[N]_[name]_comms.md — Communication calendar (from Phase 6)First, verify the artifact. If the return contract named a path, check the path exists before treating the phase as done — a named artifact that is not on disk is a failed phase, however fluent the response reads. An agent can burn a full phase and return a plausible preamble having written nothing, which is neither BLOCKED nor an error nor "cannot complete", so the trigger below never fires. Resume it naming the unmet contract; the context is usually still there.
If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete: surface it
immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a
partial report. Full procedure: .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md.
If a BLOCKED state is unresolvable, end with Verdict: BLOCKED instead of COMPLETE.
All file writes (season design docs, analytics plans, communication calendars) are
delegated to sub-agents spawned via Agent. Those writes follow the bounded
exception documented above under "Why this does not violate the Collaboration
Protocol" — the path is one you named, the artifact is new under production/,
docs/ or tests/, and the phase is gated by an AskUserQuestion. A sub-agent
does not prompt per write inside those bounds; outside them it must ask.
This orchestrator does not write files directly.
A summary covering: season theme and scope, economy design highlights, success metrics, content list, communication plan, and any open decisions needing user input before production.
Verdict: COMPLETE — season plan produced and handed off for production.
/design-review on the season design document for consistency validation./sprint-plan to schedule content creation work for the season./team-release when the season content is ready to deploy.