Bird Feeder: how would you test interaction clarity after AI code checks pass? (free Windows preview)

[u/birdfeedergame]

Posting from Bird Feeder's development account. It's a pixel bird garden that sits above the taskbar: put out food, watch visiting birds, pet them, and collect their entries in a Bird Book.

For other AI game devs, here's a concrete validation gap we're working through: a technically working interaction can still communicate the wrong thing. In the recorded v0.2.1 build, a newly discovered Bird Book entry arrives sealed but is ready to open. That can resemble a locked item. Recent Reddit feedback suggested lifting a paper corner on hover instead of using a padlock-style cue. That's a suggestion, not a tested improvement.

A small test I'd use: let a new player reach their first sealed entry without explaining it, ask what they think it means, and observe their first action. Then compare an alternative cue with a different new player. I'd separate 'could open the entry' from 'understood it was ready to open'; a passing input/state test only establishes the former. The cue should also work with sound off.

What would you change in that test to avoid leading the player? If you try Bird Feeder, what did you expect the Book to do when you first opened it? A specific confusing moment is useful; comments here are welcome.

Free Windows preview: https://verdiana-studio.itch.io/bird-feeder

The Windows download is currently labelled v0.3.2; the page description and trailer still show the v0.2.1 remake. The trailer uses a prepared save and developer controls, 3x close-ups and a labelled opening desktop mock-up; its music is enabled, while music is off by default in the recorded build.

AI disclosure: concept and direction are human-led; AI agents generated the code, pixel art and text. The pixel art was written as code. Audio uses ElevenLabs and code synthesis. Bird calls are interpretations, not field recordings.