design-review

design-review is a skill for Claude Code from CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios. It costs 34 tokens per session (715 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of design-review, MIT.

A review assistant for game design documents. It checks whether a design is complete, internally consistent, and detailed enough for programmers to implement.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a design document against required sections, project standards, related documents, and testable implementation requirements.
Why use it?
It can expose missing rules, undefined formulas, contradictory edge cases, or unclear dependencies before development begins. This reduces guesswork during implementation.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: mentions CLAUDE.md.

Good fit Use it to review a design document against required sections, project standards, related documents, and testable implementation requirements.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/coralgame/claude-code-game-studios/design-review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill design-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for design-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/coralgame/claude-code-game-studios/design-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/coralgame/claude-code-game-studios/design-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/coralgame/claude-code-game-studios/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/coralgame/claude-code-game-studios/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for design-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/coralgame/claude-code-game-studios/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/coralgame/claude-code-game-studios/design-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 34 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 715 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 92% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00034 $0.00715
Opus 5 $0.00017 $0.00358
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00143
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00072

Measured 10d ago against content hash 673f53d09356, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

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 10d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

92% identical to design-review — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

.claude/skills/design-review/SKILL.md · 81 lines

What it actually says

When this skill is invoked:

  1. Read the target design document in full.

  2. Read the master CLAUDE.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.
Changes

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.

  1. 10d ago First seen · 81 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 673f53d09356

Subscribe to this mod's changes

design-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios (19 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 715 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to design-review, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.