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 kyh/vibedgames --skill design-lensesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kyh/vibedgamesWrote 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/kyh/vibedgames/design-lenses)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kyh/vibedgames/design-lenses"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kyh/vibedgames/design-lenses/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/kyh/vibedgames/design-lenses"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kyh/vibedgames/design-lenses.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00118 | $0.02355 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00059 | $0.01177 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00471 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
design-lenses 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 11d 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 — 175 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design lens review
A lens is a viewpoint plus questions, not a rule (Schell). This skill runs a battery of lenses against a game and outputs findings an agent can implement. The defining failure of prompt-built games: mechanically correct, sensorially and emotionally dead. The lenses find where.
Procedure
- Play first, cold. Load like a first-time visitor. Record: time to first input, time to first win/lose feedback, what you understood without instructions, where you got bored. Play twice — once naive, once trying to break it (spam inputs, resize, lose on purpose, idle).
- Write the MDA sentence: "This game wants the player to feel X via dynamic Y produced by mechanics Z." Can't write it? That's finding #1 — no essential experience. Then write the loop contract: "player does [verb] to achieve [objective] while [pressure] creates risk; success → [reward], failure → [cost/retry]". Any bracket you can't fill is a finding too.
- Run the rejection gates (below). Each failed gate is an automatic
blocker— no lens needed. - Pick 8–12 lenses. Always: Essential Experience, Fun, Feedback, Juiciness, Accessibility. Add by genre (Skill vs Chance for arcade, Curiosity for puzzle, the Toy for sandbox/physics).
- Answer with evidence — a timestamp, a code path, a missing sound — never vibes.
- Severity:
blocker(player quits or never understands),major(understood but flat),minor(polish),idea(opportunity). - Findings as lens → evidence → fix, fixes concrete ("80ms hit-stop + 4px shake on collision", not "juicier"). Order: blockers, then cheapest major wins (audio + shake + score popups = highest fun-per-line).
- Re-play after fixes, re-asking only the failed lenses and gates.
Rejection gates
Binary go/no-go tests, self-applied in active play before claiming a game is fun. Any "true" = automatic blocker; fix or iterate before polishing:
- The first 30 seconds lack a real decision.
- The player can ignore the main mechanic and still progress.
- The objective is unclear without reading source code or instructions.
- Failure arrives before the player can understand why.
- Challenge is only "more things", never better combinations.
- Rewards change nothing — not strategy, score, progression, or feel.
- The space is decorative and shapes no decisions.
- The game is fun only in the designer's explanation, not in active play.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 175 lines · 118 tokens per session scan A 9efb959b9feb
design-lenses is a skill published in the GitHub repository kyh/vibedgames (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 2,355 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-ticket
Review a ticket or PR through focused specialist lenses: scope, architecture, security, tests, AC coverage, and PR metadata.
common-feedback-reporter
Pre-write audit for skill violations: checks planned code against loaded skill anti-patterns before any file write. Use when writing Flutter/Dart/TS code or editing SKILL.md files with active project skills. Load as composite; on auto-fixed violation, also load +common/common-learning-log.
code-review
Run an AI-assisted PR code review using multi-layer lenses with confidence scoring.
review-system-design
Review a system design someone else provided - screenshot, drawio, Mermaid, slides, doc, or IaC - by extracting it into a confirmed fact sheet, then scoring it on the nine axes.
common-code-review
Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews. Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback.
common-owasp
OWASP Top 10 audit checklists for Web Applications (2021), APIs (2023), and Mobile (2024). Use when performing any security review, PR review, or codebase audit touching web, mobile, or API code.