game-ux-audit
Skill0 starsChanged 25 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Audit a game's usability, onboarding, information architecture, readability, responsive behavior, interaction feedback, accessibility, and player decision clarity. Use when the user asks whether a game is understandable, navigable, readable, accessible, mobile-friendly, or visually clear.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- context-continuitySkill
- game-balance-labSkill
- game-debugSkill
- game-full-verificationSkill
- game-implementSkill
- game-planSkill
- game-playtest-analysisSkill
- game-qa-cleanupSkill
- game-releaseSkill
- music-composerSkill
- skill-auditorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Read repository guidance, the project profile in references/project-profile.md, relevant design/status sources, and the implemented product.
- Distinctive: line 25
Don't bend one because a request is casual: ask the user.
- Distinctive: line 42
Don't add a rule after your own mistake or a reviewer's nitpick without that yes.
- Distinctive: line 45
Ask about new rules once, batched at the end of the task.
- Distinctive: line 46
When a file hits its size cap, or at a milestone, prune it: cut rules no one can tie to a reason.
≈ “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.
Files
Game UX Audit
Read repository guidance, the project profile in references/project-profile.md, relevant design/status sources, and the implemented product. Audit the complete player journey rather than screenshots alone.
For every surface and transition, check:
- objective, next action, selection rules, consequences, timing, costs, targets, exclusions, and recovery paths;
- ordinary and exceptional modes, tutorial, menus, HUD, gameplay, upgrades, results, settings, save/restore, and error recovery;
- desktop and supported device viewports, text zoom, long labels, overflow, layout stability, and touch targets;
- keyboard order, focus, modal behavior, semantic names, live feedback, screen-reader order, contrast, reduced motion, and non-color cues.
Separate usability defects from visual taste, balance, and implementation bugs. Inspect rendered screenshots visually; geometry alone does not prove clarity.
Rank findings as Blocker, High, Medium, or Low. For each, provide evidence, affected players and state, frequency, consequence, and a concrete lean recommendation. Do not implement changes unless requested. Report what passed, what was not run, accessibility limits, and the smallest high-value next pass.
Rules And Pushback
Lines marked Hard rule guard approvals, deletion, publishing, and private data, where a mistake is costly or can't be undone; each gives its reason. Don't bend one because a request is casual: ask the user. Unmarked lines still bind too. Scope limits, honest evidence, and approval steps aren't optional. Scale each step's effort to the risk, and say so when you skip one that doesn't fit. A profile or instruction file records an owner decision only where it says the owner made it; otherwise treat it as project guidance. If a rule seems wrong for this task, say which one and why before you continue.
How Rules Get Made
- Something the user says in passing applies to the current task only.
- Exception: anything about money, privacy, publishing, deleting, or permissions binds as soon as they say it. Ask once whether to make it permanent.
- A rule becomes standing only when the user says "make this a rule", or you ask and they say yes. Record their words, the date, and the reason with it.
- This covers every file that steers an agent: instruction files, style guides, skills, checklists, templates, CI checks, and agent memory.
- Don't add a rule after your own mistake or a reviewer's nitpick without that yes. Fix the input or the work instead.
- A new ruling replaces the one it contradicts. Never keep both.
- Ask about new rules once, batched at the end of the task.
- When a file hits its size cap, or at a milestone, prune it: cut rules no one can tie to a reason. The user's taste decisions are flagged for them and never cut by an agent.
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
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.

