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 frabcd/codex-ai-game-studio --skill playtest-reportgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/frabcd/codex-ai-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/frabcd/codex-ai-game-studio/playtest-report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/frabcd/codex-ai-game-studio/playtest-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/frabcd/codex-ai-game-studio/playtest-report.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00035 | $0.01365 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00682 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00273 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
playtest-report 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 7d 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 — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Port provenance: adapted from the pinned upstream source at
984023ddac0d5e27624f2baacde6105e45de375funder MIT; see the repository parity ledger for the exact path and blob.
Phase 1: Parse Arguments
Resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):
- If
--review [full|lean|solo]was passed → use that - Else read
production/review-mode.txt→ use that value - Else → default to
lean
See the installed Codex role-gate protocol for the full check pattern.
Determine the mode:
new→ generate a blank playtest report templateanalyze [path]→ read raw notes and fill in the template with structured findings
Phase 2A: New Template Mode
Generate this template and output it to the user:
# Playtest Report
## Session Info
- **Date**: [Date]
- **Build**: [Version/Commit]
- **Duration**: [Time played]
- **Tester**: [Name/ID]
- **Platform**: [PC/Console/Mobile]
- **Input Method**: [KB+M / Gamepad / Touch]
- **Session Type**: [First time / Returning / Targeted test]
## Test Focus
[What specific features or flows were being tested]
## First Impressions (First 5 minutes)
- **Understood the goal?** [Yes/No/Partially]
- **Understood the controls?** [Yes/No/Partially]
- **Emotional response**: [Engaged/Confused/Bored/Frustrated/Excited]
- **Notes**: [Observations]
## Gameplay Flow
### What worked well
- [Observation 1]
### Pain points
- [Issue 1 -- Severity: High/Medium/Low]
### Confusion points
- [Where the player was confused and why]
### Moments of delight
- [What surprised or pleased the player]
## Bugs Encountered
| # | Description | Severity | Reproducible |
|---|-------------|----------|-------------|
## Feature-Specific Feedback
### [Feature 1]
- **Understood purpose?** [Yes/No]
- **Found engaging?** [Yes/No]
- **Suggestions**: [Tester suggestions]
## Quantitative Data (if available)
- **Deaths**: [Count and locations]
- **Time per area**: [Breakdown]
- **Items used**: [What and when]
- **Features discovered vs missed**: [List]
## Overall Assessment
- **Would play again?** [Yes/No/Maybe]
- **Difficulty**: [Too Easy / Just Right / Too Hard]
- **Pacing**: [Too Slow / Good / Too Fast]
- **Session length preference**: [Shorter / Good / Longer]
## Top 3 Priorities from this session
1. [Most important finding]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 150 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 4de78bf09efb
playtest-report is a skill published in the GitHub repository frabcd/codex-ai-game-studio (9 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,365 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
3d_object
Judge whether a generated mesh is fit to ship in a browser game, from the same rendered sheet the orientation review uses.
motion
How an agent turns a character mesh into a usable animated FBX — and how to judge whether the result is shippable.
audio
Use this Skill when a game plan requires dialogue, voice lines, sound effects, foley, ambience, or other offline WAV assets. This is asset generation, not a runtime audio-playback contract; use the selected engine context after an asset has passed review.
game-build
Build a risk-matched whitebox or the approved production game for its target runtime. Turn GAMEDESIGN, and ARTDIRECTION when production begins, into a minimal BUILDBRIEF and a runnable candidate that can be iterated with replayable evidence. Use for prototype the riskiest design question, implement the approved game…
novel-to-game
Turn a novel into a fully playable game on the selected target platform. Orchestrates the whole adaptation pipeline — requirements intake, gameable deconstruction, concept selection, world and visual design, target-runtime build, and evidence-based QA — for a novel in any language. Use for novel to game, story to…
game-concept
Design game concepts from a novel. From SOURCEBIBLE and PRODUCTBRIEF, generate three genuinely different directions on the dimensions still unlocked, then pick the most worthwhile playable prototype using hard vetoes and explicit trade-offs. Use for what game should this novel become, compare game concepts, choose a…