design-review

design-review is a skill for Claude Code from HolyMonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio. It costs 34 tokens per session (715 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of design-review, MIT.

A review of a game design document before programmers implement it. It checks whether the rules, formulas, edge cases, dependencies, and success conditions are complete and consistent.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a target design document, related designs, and the project’s standards for implementability and internal consistency.
Why use it?
It helps catch unclear or contradictory design details before they become implementation problems.

Skill for Claude Code

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

Good fit Use it to review a target design document, related designs, and the project’s standards for implementability and internal consistency.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio/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 HolyMonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio --skill design-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HolyMonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio

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/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio/design-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/holymonkey/youtube-example-ai-studio/design-review)
Your own site
<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.

agentmods 80×15 button for design-review

Your own site · 80×15
<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>
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 9d 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 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.

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. 9d 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 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.

Related

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…

valkor-ai/loom · 75 tokens

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…

valkor-ai/loom · 85 tokens

godot-code-review

Use when reviewing GDScript or C# Godot code — checklist of best practices, common anti-patterns, and Godot-specific pitfalls.

jame581/GodotPrompter · 33 tokens

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.

meta-quest/agentic-tools · 42 tokens

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.

TheArcForge/Hades · 39 tokens

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…

kyh/vibedgames · 118 tokens