agentleFS
Sign inStart free
scotidevscotidev/GameDevStudio/.agents/skills/design-review/SKILL.md

design-review

Skill1 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Reviews a game design document for completeness, internal consistency, implementability, and adherence to project design standards. Run this before handing a design document to programmers.

155 other projects use a version of this, 7 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use brief-to-tasks, asset-spec and 4 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • julianoczkowskiSkill

    brief-to-tasks

    Break a design brief into an ordered checklist of independently buildable tasks using vertical slices. Saves as a markdown checklist. Use when user wants to break down work, create tasks from a brief, plan implementation order, or mentions "tasks" or "breakdown".

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    asset-spec

    Generate per-asset visual specifications and AI generation prompts from GDDs, level docs, or character profiles. Produces structured spec files and updates the master asset manifest. Run after art bible and GDD/level design are approved, before production begins.

    Also in 10 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    create-control-manifest

    After architecture is complete, produces a flat actionable rules sheet for programmers — what you must do, what you must never do, per system and per layer. Extracted from all Accepted ADRs, technical preferences, and engine reference docs. More immediately actionable than ADRs (which explain why).

    Also in 10 projects that use this

  • +3 more from lilangMax

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 129 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When this skill is invoked:

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?

    line 29
  3. Distinctive:

    Do edge cases contradict the main rules?

    line 30
  4. Very specific:

    If the document being reviewed is game-concept.md or game-pillars.md:

    line 67
  5. Very specific:

    Check if design/gdd/systems-index.md exists

    line 68
  6. Distinctive:

    If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:

    line 69
  7. Distinctive:

    If the document is an individual system GDD:

    line 73
  8. Distinctive:

    Check if the systems index references this system

    line 74
  9. Distinctive:

    If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'Approved'."

    line 75
  10. Distinctive:

    If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'."

    line 77

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 129 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

When this skill is invoked:

  1. Read the target design document in full.
  2. Read the master AGENTS.md to understand project context and standards.
  3. Read related design documents referenced or implied by the target doc (check design/gdd/ for related systems).
  4. Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist:
    • Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary)
    • Has Player Fantasy section (intended feeling)
    • Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics)
    • Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables)
    • Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled)
    • Has Dependencies section (other systems listed)
    • Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified)
    • Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions)
  5. Check for internal consistency:
    • Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?
    • Do edge cases contradict the main rules?
    • Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)?
  6. Check for implementability:
    • Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing?
    • Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing?
    • Are performance implications considered?
  7. Check for cross-system consistency:
    • Does this conflict with any existing mechanic?
    • Does this create unintended interactions with other systems?
    • Is this consistent with the game's established tone and pillars?
  8. Output the review in this format:
## Design Review: [Document Title]

### Completeness: [X/8 sections present]
[List missing sections]

### Consistency Issues
[List any internal or cross-system contradictions]

### Implementability Concerns
[List any vague or unimplementable sections]

### Balance Concerns
[List any obvious balance risks]

### Recommendations
[Prioritized list of improvements]

### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]
  1. Contextual next step recommendations:
    • If the document being reviewed is game-concept.md or game-pillars.md:
      • Check if design/gdd/systems-index.md exists
      • If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:

        "This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run /map-systems to break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities, then write per-system GDDs."

    • If the document is an individual system GDD:
      • Check if the systems index references this system
      • If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'Approved'."
      • If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'."
      • Note: This skill is read-only. The user (or /design-system) must perform the actual status update in the systems index.

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