agentleFS
Sign inStart free
ThiagoFdaSLopesThiagoFdaSLopes/game-dev-skills/skills/game-review/SKILL.md

game-review

Skill2 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review game code, a PR/diff, a system design or an architecture for bugs, unsafe assumptions, regressions, coupling and test gaps, ranked by severity with file locations. Use when the user says review, audit, "look over", "is this ok", or shares a PR. Read-only - never edits unless explicitly asked.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. fcsouza/agent-skills★ 24same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the real code. Rank what matters.

    line 9
  2. Very specific:

    Read before starting: references/principles.md, references/project-profile.md and the project profile itself, …

    line 11

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

game-review

Read the real code. Rank what matters. Cite where it is. Change nothing.

Read before starting: references/principles.md, references/project-profile.md and the project profile itself, references/architecture-review.md, references/risk-register.md, and the review entry of profile: Sources of truth.

Process

  1. Scope - what exactly is under review (files, diff range, system). State it in one line. Read the actual code, not a summary of it. A review larger than a few files runs in a subagent that reads the code and returns only the findings, when the runtime offers one (profile: Context budget).
  2. Context - engine, patterns the rest of the project uses, tests that exist, platforms targeted, and the design and technical files of the systems touched. A finding that contradicts the project's own conventions or a recorded decision is weighted higher than one that contradicts generic advice.
  3. Decisions - look up every decision cited in the changed code, comments and PR and confirm the code follows it. Flag code that drifts from a recorded decision, and code that settles an item still pending or a choice no recorded decision covers. Both are findings, at least MED.
  4. Find - in priority order: correctness bugs, unsafe assumptions, regressions, gameplay-feel regressions (timing, input, determinism), authority and trust in client data (in networked games), coupling and ownership problems, performance traps on the target platform, save/serialization risks, missing test seams, a change to what a new player sees in the first minutes with neither a first-use run on the changed build nor a named gap for it (profile: First-use check), and the rules in profile: Conventions.
  5. Rank - each finding gets a severity and an evidence label.
  6. Report findings first, summary last.

Finding format

[HIGH]  PlayerController.cs:142  verified
Jump force is multiplied by Time.deltaTime inside FixedUpdate,
so jump height changes with the physics tick rate.
Impact:  different feel on 30 vs 60 Hz physics; breaks replays.
Fix:     remove deltaTime; use an impulse, or scale by fixedDeltaTime once.

Severity: HIGH (bug, data loss, security, blocks shipping), MED (likely bug or significant maintainability/perf cost), LOW (nit, style, minor coupling). Group LOW items together; do not pad.

Design/architecture review

Walk the five points of the shared architecture review and report only the ones with a concrete problem. Add a gate question (shared risk format) when a high-impact uncertainty needs the user's call, not your edit.

Closing

Summary:   two or three lines - overall state, biggest risk, is it mergeable
Verified:  what was read/run     Not checked: what was out of reach

Never

  • edit files during a review; if asked to fix, say "switching to game-implement" and proceed within that request
  • report conjecture as a verified finding
  • summarise before listing findings

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free