QA Arsenal

Specscope

Jalaran Specscope audits a game feature across ten player-experience axes — from monetisation ethics to churn risk — and turns the scores into a narrative about what players will actually feel.

Open Specscope →Create free account

Who Specscope is for

For QA and design on free-to-play and live-service games, where the real risk in a feature is rarely a crash. If you have ever shipped something that worked perfectly and made players angry, these are the ten axes that would have caught it.

What Specscope does

Specscope scores a feature across ten player-experience axes: clarity, responsiveness, fairness, monetisation ethics, accessibility, onboarding friction, social friction, performance budget, retention impact and churn risk. The AI suggests a score per axis and you override any of them freely — it is a starting position, not a verdict. The overall risk score and tier are always recomputed on the server from the ten axes, so the summary always matches the detail. It also writes Player Story impact statements, turning a row of numbers into a description of what someone will experience.

Ten player-experience axes including monetisation ethics and churn risk
AI-suggested scores that you can override on every axis
Overall risk tier always recomputed server-side from the axes
Player Story impact statements and Markdown export

How Specscope works

Describe the feature
The mechanic, the monetisation, and who encounters it when.
Get suggested axis scores
Ten player-experience axes scored one to five, each with a risk label rather than a bare number.
Override what you disagree with
Every axis is freely editable. You know your players; the suggestion is a first pass.
Read the Player Story
Impact statements describing what a player actually experiences, which is what makes a risk argue-able in a design review.
Export the audit
A formatted Markdown document you can bring to the review.

What Specscope does not do

Specscope is built for free-to-play and live-service games specifically — the axes ask about monetisation, player fairness and retention, so it is the wrong tool for auditing enterprise software requirements, and its previous description as a general requirement-analysis tool was simply inaccurate. It audits a feature you describe; it does not read your build, your telemetry or your live metrics. Scores are structured judgement, not measurement — the value is in being made to answer all ten questions.

Common questions

Is this for games only?

Effectively yes. The ten axes are player-experience concerns — monetisation ethics, fairness across spend levels, churn risk — so it is aimed at free-to-play and live-service teams. For general software requirement review, Testplan’s risk analysis is the closer fit.

Can I disagree with the AI’s scores?

Yes, on every axis. Suggestions are a first pass and are freely overridable; the overall risk tier is then recomputed from whatever the final scores are, so the summary can never drift from the detail.

Does it look at my actual game?

No. It audits the feature as you describe it. It has no access to your build, telemetry or live metrics, and the discipline of answering all ten questions is where the value is.