# Project Profile

- Project Name: Queue Goblin
- Preferred X Username: @QueueGoblin
- X Bio: Direct the disaster. Set agent goals, bend the rules, replay the office chaos. An original local simulation you can export.
- Token Name: Queue Goblin
- Token Ticker: QGOB
- Token Description: Queue Goblin turns fictional AI agent mishaps into a playable desktop comedy. Set goals and rules, run reproducible local simulations, explore incident branches, and export share cards. Players investigate how small constraints change outcomes, turning chaotic task queues into stories they can compare and retell.

## Pre-launch Tweet 1

```text
Three agents. One task. Nobody has read the memo.

Queue Goblin turns the office desktop into a tiny theater of bad decisions. You write the rules. The queue develops a personality.

Which instruction would you trust least?
```

![Three fictional goblin agents fight over a paper task queue](pre-launch-1.png)

## Pre-launch Tweet 2

```text
A single rule can turn an orderly queue into a paper avalanche.

Set a goal, choose your constraints, then see what the local simulation does with them. Keep the seed. Change one rule.

What would you test first?
```

![Two goblin agents inspect a switch that tangles a paper conveyor](pre-launch-2.png)

## Project Launch Tweet

```text
Meet Queue Goblin: direct a fictional AI office disaster.
Set goals, change rules, replay branches, export your incident.

https://www.queuegoblin.xyz/

Planned token: Queue Goblin $<ticker>
CA: <ca>
Token not issued. Local simulation available.
```

![Queue Goblin presents an original local simulation on a desktop theater stage](project-launch.png)

## Follow-up Tweet 1

```text
Office experiment: keep the goal and seed fixed. Change just one rule.

Run both versions. Compare the event logs. Which consequence surprised you?

Bring one small change and one very specific result.
```

![Two illustrated run configurations differ by one rule](follow-up-1.png)

## Follow-up Tweet 2

```text
An incident is a fork in the office carpet.

Try one branch, then replay the other with the same setup. Did your intervention fix the problem or simply give it a new job title?

Pick a branch and explain your call.
```

![An incident diagram splits into two possible branches](follow-up-2.png)

## Follow-up Tweet 3

```text
Before blaming the agent, inspect the assignment.

Pick a goal. Set the rules. Run the simulation. Now read the result as if you wrote the employee handbook.

Which boundary would you tighten next?
```

![A three-step goal review checklist](follow-up-3.png)

## Follow-up Tweet 4

```text
The loudest window is not always the source of the mess.

Trace a fictional incident backward: what happened, what was allowed, what was asked?

Tell us which rule deserves a performance review.
```

![Three windows connect the goal, rule, and event](follow-up-4.png)

## Follow-up Tweet 5

```text
Your office disaster deserves documentation.

Export the PNG share card after a run. Pair it with the setting that mattered most and the branch you chose.

Post your incident with a one-line explanation. No real agents were sent anywhere.
```

![An illustrated incident card includes configuration and export details](follow-up-5.png)

## Follow-up Tweet 6

```text
A seed is only one part of the recipe.

Keep the goal, rules, seed, and branch together when comparing runs. The same setup should tell the same story.

Try to reproduce your favorite mistake before changing anything.
```

![Goal, rules, seed, and branch form a reproducible simulation recipe](follow-up-6.png)

## Follow-up Tweet 7

```text
Help improve the next office incident.

Tell us what you expected, which setting you changed, and what you observed. Include your seed and branch so the story can be replayed.

The best bug report starts before the punchline.
```

![A post-mortem memo asks for expectations, changes, and observations](follow-up-7.png)
