Standout Builder Studio · planning Index / UI variants review Updated 13 Jun 2026

Three ways to build every screen

Same flow, different UI personalities — each key Builder surface is rendered three ways so we can choose deliberately instead of defaulting to the first sketch. The journey simulator answers "does the flow feel right"; this page answers "which treatment of each screen". Every panel here is a CONCEPT · proposed mock; two variants additionally carry a tag because working code for them already exists on an unmerged branch.


How to use this page

Three Builder surfaces are treated below — choosing the build path (step 1), configuring mechanics (step 3), and validation & readiness (step 5). Each surface gets three variants (A / B / C) shown side by side, a trade-off table that scores them on five axes, and a recommendation. The variants are not ranked sketches; they are genuinely different bets on who the screen is for and how much it does for the builder.

The five scoring axes, each rated low · medium · high:

HandholdingHow much the screen guides a first-timer who does not know the domain. High = leads by the hand; low = assumes you know what you want.
Expert speedHow fast a fluent internal builder gets through it. High = nothing in the way; low = the guidance becomes friction.
Information densityHow much state is visible at once. High = everything on screen; low = one thing at a time.
Build costEngineering effort to ship the treatment. High = expensive (new estimators, live sims); low = mostly layout.
GenAI leverageHow well the treatment exploits the generative-AI touchpoints. High = the model has an obvious seat; low = it is bolted on.
How to evaluate before committing
Don't pick from this page alone. Put each variant in front of 2–3 real Game Builders for 15 minutes each and watch where they hesitate. The recommendations below are our reasoned starting position; a short usability pass will confirm or overturn them far more cheaply than building the wrong one.

Surface 1 · Choosing the build path (step 1)

The entry screen of the whole product — the first impression for an external Game Builder, and the daily front door for the internal studio. It asks what kind of game are you making before any config is touched. The proposal is specified in full at 01 · Build Path Picker; here it is one of three competing personalities.

A · Path cards CONCEPT · proposed

A · Path cards

Personality: browse-and-choose — every path and base visible at once.

Reskin
hours
Tune
~a day · math gate
Variant
days · scaffold PR
New game
a week+
Import existing
~a day to spec
Start the package →
B · One question at a time CONCEPT · proposed

B · One question at a time

Personality: maximum handholding, external-builder-first; slower for pros.

Step 1 of 2
What are you building?
A fresh look on a game we certifyReskin — art, audio and copy only. Hours to playable.
Small tweaks to an existing titleTune — limits and timing. A math check before launch.
A new spin on a game's mechanicsVariant — full config from a base. Days, with a scaffold PR.
Something brand newNew game — design from a mechanic up. A week or more.
A game already built elsewhereImport — upload screenshots and an info sheet.
Next question
Which base do you want to start from?
A short, filtered list of compatible templates and builds — one tap, then you're into the package.
C · Path rail + detail CONCEPT · proposed

C · Path rail + detail panel

prototype exists · origin/feat/builder-studio-path-picker-mock

Personality: information-dense, internal-team-first — the consequences of a path are all on screen.

New game
Variant
Reskin
Prototype
Variant · build on a certified base
Inherits
mechanic · wallet flow · baseline math · reviewer notes
Required
base game · changed config fields · theme/copy delta · operator or market target
Validation gates
diff is explicit · unchanged math assumptions preserved · changed assets pass · reviewer notes carried forward
Sandbox output
side-by-side base vs variant preview, changed fields highlighted
Handoff
focused variant review — not full recertification
Path Inputs Validate Sandbox Handoff

Variant C reproduces the BUILD_PATHS content and the five-stage FLOW_STEPS strip from the path-picker branch prototype verbatim. Note the honest mismatch: that prototype has 4 paths (New game · Variant · Reskin · Prototype) and a 5-stage Path→Handoff strip, whereas this suite's canonical flow has 5 paths (it adds Import / Tune and drops standalone Prototype into New game) across 8 steps. If C is chosen, that reconciliation is the first task — the strip would re-band onto the eight-step ladder and the path set would align with flow/01.

Variant Handholding Expert speed Info density Build cost GenAI leverage Best when
A · Path cards medium high high low medium The default shell — a returning builder who scans options and goes.
B · One question high low low medium high First-run for an external builder who has a concept, not a template id.
C · Rail + detail medium high high medium low Internal studio deciding scope — what a path inherits vs owes matters most.
Recommendation
Ship A as the default shell — it is the cheapest to build and the fastest for the people who use this screen most. Serve B as the external portal's first-run experience, where a guided single question converts a partner who arrived with an idea rather than a template. Fold C's detail panel into A as an expandable "what this path means" drawer on each card, so the internal team gets the inherits/required/gates breakdown on demand without paying for a second full layout. One shell, two doors in, depth on request.

Surface 2 · Configuring mechanics (step 3)

The numbers screen — where a builder sets bet limits, math levers and bonus thresholds, and where a wrong value quietly changes the RTP. Today's /builder/new form is a grouped field editor; the three treatments below differ on how loudly they teach cause-and-effect and how much the model drafts for you.

A · Grouped panels + diff rail CONCEPT · proposed

A · Grouped panels + diff rail

Personality: spreadsheet honesty — every field and every delta laid out plainly.

Betting
Minimum bet0.25
Maximum bet1,000
Math & RTP
RTP96.00%
Win multiplier range0.05–8.0×
Bonuses
Silent Pick threshold12
Informant threshold32
Changed vs base
winMultiplier
0.1–5.1× → 0.05–8.0×
silentPickThreshold
15 → 12
B · Intent first CONCEPT · proposed

B · Intent first

Personality: genAI-forward, fastest to a draft; risk is trust and prompt literacy.

Describe the change
"Make it hit harder — max win around 800×, fewer but bigger wins."
Model proposes
winMultiplier range
0.05–8.0× → 0.02–14.0×
AcceptReject
Silent Pick threshold
12 → 18
AcceptReject
Verify by simulation propose → simulate → prove · how this stays honest
C · Live impact cockpit CONCEPT · proposed

C · Live impact cockpit

Personality: feels alive, teaches cause-and-effect; needs a cheap client-side estimator or debounced sim.

RTP96.0%
Max bet1,000
Multiplier0.05–8.0×
Silent Pick12
RTP estimate96.0%
VolatilityMed-High → High
Max win812×
Hit frequency1 in 3.8

Amber zones mark out-of-band values; estimates are advisory until a Math-Sim proof confirms them.

Variant Handholding Expert speed Info density Build cost GenAI leverage Best when
A · Grouped + diff low high high low low The floor — a builder who knows exactly which field to change.
B · Intent first high high medium medium high Drafting fast from a goal in plain language — proof comes after.
C · Impact cockpit high medium high high medium Teaching cause-and-effect — seeing a lever move the RTP in real time.
Recommendation
These compose rather than compete — sequence them A → C → B. A is the floor and must exist: a grouped editor with a "changed vs base" rail is the honest representation of a config and the surface every other treatment writes into. C is the differentiator worth the estimator investment — live gauges turn an opaque form into a teaching tool, and the cost (a cheap client-side estimator, debounced sim for the rest) buys the "feels alive" quality nothing else gives. B layers on top as an accelerator: intent-to-draft produces exactly the A-grouped and C-gauge edits the other two already render, so it ships last and reuses both. Build the floor, make it alive, then let the model drive it.

Surface 3 · Validation & readiness (step 5)

The "is it ready" screen — gates that return pass / warn / fail and, in the proposal, let a builder dispatch an agent to fix a failing one. The three treatments differ on whether you see every gate, a single motivating number, or just the next thing to fix.

A · Gate list + "Do it for me" CONCEPT · proposed

A · Gate list + "Do it for me"

Personality: the canonical surface — full pass/warn/fail list, fix in place.

Manifest completeness
Pass
Math config
Pass
RTP sim proof
sim pending — last proof v0.1.9
Do it for meExplain
Warn
Asset completeness
Lobby tile missing
Do it for meExplain
Fail
Copy / localisation
Operator copy not yet approved
Do it for meExplain
Warn
Jurisdiction
Pass
B · Readiness scorecard CONCEPT · proposed

B · Readiness scorecard

prototype exists · origin/feat/builder-studio-readiness-grounded

Personality: glanceable, motivating, exec-friendly; risk is a single number hiding which blocker matters.

78%
Trunk Raider: Overdrive is 78% ready for operator handoff. One blocker and two warnings stand between here and a clean package.
By family
Manifest100%
Math80%
Assets55%
Copy70%
Jurisdiction100%
What moves the number
Upload the lobby tile (+18%) · approve operator copy (+12%) · re-run the RTP sim (+8%).
C · Blocker queue CONCEPT · proposed

C · Blocker queue

Personality: maximum momentum, very handheld; risk is hiding the full picture from power users.

Clear the next blocker
FailAsset completeness
The lobby tile is missing. A sandbox can launch with a placeholder, but operator handoff needs the real tile at safe-area spec.
Do it for me Dispatch Asset agent Upload tile
2 more after this Skip for now →
Up next: RTP sim proof (Warn)Copy / localisation (Warn). One card at a time, in priority order.
Variant Handholding Expert speed Info density Build cost GenAI leverage Best when
A · Gate list medium high high medium high The working surface — see every gate, fix any one in place.
B · Scorecard medium medium medium low low A dashboard glance — "how close is this build" across many games.
C · Blocker queue high low low medium high Mobile or an external builder who wants the next step, not the report.
Recommendation
A is the canonical surface — the per-gate list with "Do it for me" is where validation work actually happens, and it is the vision step-5 treatment. B is the workspace/dashboard summary: the scorecard belongs above a list, not instead of one. The two prototypes literally compose — readiness ring up top, gate list below — which is exactly the GameWorkspace layout the readiness branch already builds. C is the mobile / external-builder mode of A: same gates, same agents, surfaced one prioritised card at a time for momentum on a small screen. The readiness branch prototype is useful evidence here — it proves the scorecard renders well with the components that ship today, so B is low-risk to adopt as the summary band.
Both branch prototypes need a disposition after this decision
Two real, unmerged branches back the tagged variants on this page: origin/feat/builder-studio-path-picker-mock (Surface 1 · C) and origin/feat/builder-studio-readiness-grounded (Surface 3 · B). Once a direction is chosen, each should be either promoted into the chosen treatment (path-picker → the flow/01 shell with C's drawer; readiness → the GameWorkspace summary band) or closed so they don't linger as ambiguous half-states. They are concept mocks in this suite, but working code exists — leaving it un-dispositioned is its own kind of debt.

Deciding

The summary of the three recommendations, and the cheapest way to confirm each before committing engineering time.

Surface Recommended direction What to prototype next Cheapest validation
1 · Build path A as the default shell; B as the external first-run; C's detail folded into A as a drawer. The "what this path means" drawer on an A card, using C's inherits/required/gates content. Builder interview — watch 2–3 builders pick a path cold.
3 · Mechanics Sequence A → C → B; they compose (intent drafts the edits the others render). C's client-side RTP/volatility estimator — the gauge accuracy is the whole bet. Simulator run — check estimator output against a real Math-Sim proof.
5 · Validation A as canonical; B as the dashboard summary band above it; C as the mobile/external mode. The composed B-over-A layout in GameWorkspace — promote the readiness branch. Branch promotion — the readiness prototype already renders; trial it in workspace.

The division of labour is deliberate: the journey simulator plays the journey end to end, this page picks the individual screens, and the flow/01–06 proposals then get updated to the chosen treatment — keeping those proposals in step with the decisions made here is the planning cadence's job, not a one-off edit. For where this sits in the wider plan, see the mind map's Guided-flow branch.