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 HolyMonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio --skill design-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HolyMonkey/youtube-example-ai-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/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-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/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-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 | $0.00034 | $0.00715 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00072 |
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 9d 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.
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.
What it actually says
When this skill is invoked:
-
Read the target design document in full.
-
Read the master CLAUDE.md to understand project context and standards.
-
Read related design documents referenced or implied by the target doc (check
design/gdd/for related systems). -
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)
-
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)?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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]
- Contextual next step recommendations:
- If the document being reviewed is
game-concept.mdorgame-pillars.md:- Check if
design/gdd/systems-index.mdexists - If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:
"This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run
/map-systemsto break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities, then write per-system GDDs."
- Check if
- 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.
- If the document being reviewed is
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 81 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 673f53d09356
design-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HolyMonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio (11 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.
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
Structured game-design critique: review a game through Schell's design lenses, Wright's systems-and-emergence lenses, and the MDA framework, producing severity-ranked findings with concrete fixes. Use when the user asks 'is my game fun?', 'review my game design', 'why is it boring?', 'critique this game', 'what's…