Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio --skill design-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studioWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/design-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/design-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00038 | $0.00587 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
design-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/design-review — Design Doc Quality Review
Delegate to: game-designer (with systems-designer assist for technical sections)
Steps
1. Identify Documents to Review
- Ask the user which doc(s) to review, OR
- Default: review the most recently modified doc in
design/gdd/ - Multi-doc review: check cross-references and consistency
2. Structural Checks (8 required sections)
For each GDD, verify presence of:
- Overview & Purpose
- Core Mechanics (detailed, not just "attacks")
- Data Schema (DataStore keys, types, defaults)
- Client-Server Split
- RemoteEvents/Functions needed
- Player-Facing UI (description or mockup)
- Edge Cases & Error States
- Balancing Parameters (with formulas, not "balanced appropriately")
- Integration Points
3. Content Quality Checks
- Specificity: No vague phrases like "balanced appropriately", "calculated correctly"
- Formulas: Every calculation explicitly written
- Magic Numbers: All numeric values justified or tunable
- Edge Cases: Minimum of 5 edge cases documented
- Integration: Every other system this depends on is named
- Reading Flow: Sections in logical order; a new reader could understand
4. Cross-System Consistency
- References to other systems match their actual GDDs
- Data schema doesn't conflict with existing DataStore schema
- Remote names align with remotes-manifest
- UI references match UI style guide
5. Roblox-Specific Checks
- Security: Server authority respected
- DataStore: Budget impact considered
- Performance: Mobile feasibility acknowledged
- Content policy: Age-appropriate
- Accessibility: Considered for player interactions
Output
Generate a review report:
# Design Review: [GDD Name]
## Summary
- Total issues: X
- Critical: X (must fix)
- Important: X (should fix)
- Nice-to-have: X (suggestions)
## Critical Issues
1. [Issue description, location, suggested fix]
## Important Issues
1. [...]
## Nice to Have
1. [...]
## Recommended Actions
- [Specific next steps for the author]
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 77 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A f3ce17a7cc92
design-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio (9 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 587 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
animation-review
Reviews Godot Animation implementation for known pitfalls. Triggers AFTER implementation, when code involves AnimationPlayer, AnimationTree, AnimatedSprite2D, SpriteFrames, AnimationNodeStateMachine, BlendSpace, OneShot, callbackmodeprocess, or animation playback control (play/travel/start). Do NOT use this skill for…
tilemap-review
Reviews Godot TileMap implementation for known pitfalls. Triggers AFTER implementation, when code involves TileMapLayer, TileSet, TileSetAtlasSource, TileSetScenesCollectionSource, terrain painting, setcell, erasecell, getcelltiledata, collision polygons on tiles, or NavigationRegion2D with tile-based navigation. Do…
godot-code-review
Use when reviewing GDScript or C# Godot code — checklist of best practices, common anti-patterns, and Godot-specific pitfalls.
hz-unity-code-review
Reviews Unity code targeting Meta Quest and Horizon OS for performance issues, rendering best practices, and common VR pitfalls. Use during code review or when diagnosing Quest performance problems in Unity projects.
unity-reviewer
Use when reviewing Unity C# code changes — checks for runtime-breaking bugs, performance anti-patterns, and maintainability issues. Provides severity-tiered review organized as Critical, Performance, and Style.
design-lenses
Critique a game's design through Schell's lenses, MDA and systems thinking, ranking findings by severity with fixes. Design-level review, not bugs or feel tuning.