!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Insufficient input — check this before producing any report

If the inputs this skill needs do not exist, the answer is "could not run" — not a filled-in report. Check first, and stop if the check fails.

1. List the inputs this skill reads (data files, prior reports, profiler output, test results, registries, source code).
2. For each, record FOUND or ABSENT — not "assumed present".
3. If any input required for a section is ABSENT, that section is NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA. Do not estimate it, do not infer it from an adjacent artifact, and do not leave a mandated cell to be filled by whoever reads the template next.
4. If every required input is ABSENT, stop and report NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA as the whole verdict, naming what was missing and which skill produces it.

A verdict of NOT ASSESSED is a success. It is the correct, useful answer to "what does the data say?" when there is no data. The failure mode this prevents is specific and has been observed in practice: report templates whose verdict enum had no "could not run" state produced false clean passes — an asset audit returning COMPLIANT on a project with no assets and no standards, and a performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against a 16.67ms budget" with zero profiler data and no budget ever set.

Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. A scan that finds no matches because there are no files to scan has not verified anything. Say which of the two happened — a reader cannot tell from a green result.

Phase 1: Identify Balance Domain

Determine the balance domain from $ARGUMENTS — the whole string, since a data-file path may contain spaces:

• Combat → weapon/ability DPS, time-to-kill, damage type interactions
• Economy → resource faucets/sinks, acquisition rates, item pricing
• Progression → XP/power curves, dead zones, power spikes
• Loot → rarity distribution, pity timers, inventory pressure
• File path given → load that file directly and infer domain from content

If no argument, ask the user which system to check.

Phase 2: Read Data Files

Read relevant files from assets/data/ and design/balance/ for the identified domain. Note every file read — they will appear in the Data Sources section of the report.

Phase 3: Read Design Document

Registry first. If design/registry/entities.yaml exists, read it before the GDD. Its constants and formulas sections hold the cross-GDD named values and output ranges — the balance targets — already distilled, each with a source: GDD and any revised: date:

Grep pattern="^  - name:" path="design/registry/entities.yaml" output_mode="content" -A 6

Take the intended values from the registry for any constant or formula it lists (the constants: and formulas: blocks); these are the authoritative cross-doc figures a GDD must not contradict. If design/registry/entities.yaml does not exist or has no entries (it ships as an empty stub until /design-system populates it), skip this and use the GDD alone.

Then read the GDD for the system from design/gdd/ to understand intended design targets, tuning knobs, and expected value ranges — for anything the registry did not already supply. This is the baseline for "correct" behaviour.

If the data files are FOUND but neither source gives targets for this domain, the sections that judge against targets (Outliers Detected, and Progression Analysis where the domain has a curve) are NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA. Each one names what was missing — the GDD it looked for in design/gdd/, and whether the registry was absent or empty — and names /design-system, which writes both.

Phase 4: Perform Analysis

Every domain: compare each value with its target. For each named value in the data files, take its target from Phase 3 — a registry constant's value, a registry formula's output_range, or the range the GDD states — and compare. A value outside its target is a row in Outliers Detected (player_damage_base 140 against 90–110). A value with no target anywhere is neither in range nor an outlier: list it under Values That Need Attention as no stated range — not judged.

Then run domain-specific checks:

Combat balance:

• Calculate DPS for all weapons/abilities at each power tier
• Check time-to-kill at each tier
• Identify any options that dominate all others (strictly better)
• Check if defensive options can create unkillable states
• Verify damage type/resistance interactions are balanced

Economy balance:

• Map all resource faucets and sinks with flow rates
• Project resource accumulation over time
• Check for infinite resource loops
• Verify gold sinks scale with gold generation
• Check if any items are never worth purchasing

Progression balance:

• Plot the XP curve and power curve
• Check for dead zones (no meaningful progression for too long)
• Check for power spikes (sudden jumps in capability)
• Verify content gates align with expected player power
• Check if skip/grind strategies break intended pacing

Loot balance:

• Calculate expected time to acquire each rarity tier
• Check pity timer math
• Verify no loot is strictly useless at any stage
• Check inventory pressure vs acquisition rate

Phase 5: Output the Analysis

## Balance Check: [System Name]

### Data Sources Analyzed
- [List of files read]

### Health Summary: [NOT ASSESSED / HEALTHY / CONCERNS / CRITICAL ISSUES]

### Outliers Detected
| Item/Value | Expected Range | Actual | Issue |
|-----------|---------------|--------|-------|

### Degenerate Strategies Found
- [Strategy description and why it is problematic]

### Progression Analysis
[Graph description or table showing progression curve health]

### Recommendations
| Priority | Issue | Suggested Fix | Impact |
|----------|-------|--------------|--------|

### Values That Need Attention
[Specific values with suggested adjustments and rationale]

Choose the Health Summary by the worst finding, first match wins:

• CRITICAL ISSUES — a degenerate strategy (one choice dominates every alternative), a progression that stalls or cannot be completed, or an economy loop with no sink
• CONCERNS — outliers or curve problems a tuning pass can fix, with no finding of the critical kind
• NOT ASSESSED — nothing to analyze (the no-data path above), a section that needs targets is NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA, or a value had no stated range to judge it against; name which. It ranks below the two finding verdicts, because a measured problem is more actionable than a gap, and above HEALTHY
• HEALTHY — every value judged against a stated target, no outliers, no degenerate strategies, progression within the stated targets

Phase 6: Fix & Verify Cycle

After presenting the report, use AskUserQuestion:

• Prompt: "Balance check complete. What would you like to do next?"
• Options:
  • [A] Fix highest-priority issue now — walk me through it
  • [B] Save report to design/balance/balance-check-[system]-[date].md
  • [C] Stop here — I'll review the findings manually

If [A]:

• Ask which issue to address first (refer to the Recommendations table by priority row)
• Guide the user to update the relevant data file in assets/data/ or formula in design/balance/
• After each fix, offer to re-run the relevant balance checks to verify no new outliers were introduced
• If the fix changes a tuning knob defined in a GDD or referenced by an ADR, remind the user:

  "This value is defined in a design document. Run /propagate-design-change [path] on the affected GDD to find downstream impacts before committing."

If [B]:

• Write the report to design/balance/balance-check-[system]-[date].md (create the directory if needed). Use the current date for [date] in YYYY-MM-DD format.
• Confirm the file was written, then end with: "Re-run /balance-check after fixes to verify."

If [C]:

• Summarize open issues and end with: "Re-run /balance-check after fixes to verify."