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 mike007jd/game-superpowers --skill gsp-playability-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mike007jd/game-superpowersWrote 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/mike007jd/game-superpowers/gsp-playability-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mike007jd/game-superpowers/gsp-playability-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mike007jd/game-superpowers/gsp-playability-verifier/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/mike007jd/game-superpowers/gsp-playability-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mike007jd/game-superpowers/gsp-playability-verifier.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00414 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00207 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
gsp-playability-verifier 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.
What it actually says
Game Playability Verifier
Goal
Verify the build against its actual target, not a generic low bar.
Outputs
Follow the gsp-orchestrator output strategy:
- inline (default): present verification results in conversation.
- minimal or full: write
docs/game-studio/quality-report.md.
Use
./shared/templates/quality-report.md./shared/checklists/first-playable-rubric.md./shared/checklists/polished-prototype-rubric.md./shared/checklists/playability-verifier-output-checklist.md./shared/checklists/ui-ux-hard-rules.md
Quality-aware verification
- If the target is
first-playable, use./shared/checklists/first-playable-rubric.md. - If the target is
polished-prototype, also use./shared/checklists/polished-prototype-rubric.md. - If the target is
production-featureorlive-patch, verify the requested feature set plus regression risk in touched areas.
Minimum checks
- boots
- reaches the correct actionable state
- requested verbs work
- requested critical features in scope are present
- HUD / affordances are readable
- playfield is not obviously sacrificed to UI clutter
- no blocking runtime errors
- the build quality matches the selected target
Reporting rules
For each critical check, report:
- pass / fail / partial
- evidence source
- short note or repair direction
Important
Do not declare success merely because something runs. The verifier exists to catch “technically alive, product-wise weak” outcomes. When runtime evidence is missing, say so explicitly. In a multi-agent build flow, this skill is the default verifier stage after implementation review, not an optional final flourish.
What ships with it
10 files 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.
- CHANGELOG.md 213 B
- examples/usage.md 633 B
- MANIFEST.yaml 3.4 KB
- README.md 1012 B
- shared/checklists/first-playable-rubric.md 1.2 KB
- shared/checklists/playability-verifier-output-checklist.md 364 B
- shared/checklists/polished-prototype-rubric.md 1.3 KB
- shared/checklists/ui-ux-hard-rules.md 2.2 KB
- shared/templates/quality-report.md 787 B
- tests/smoke.md 459 B
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 50 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A d337c371ab13
gsp-playability-verifier is a skill published in the GitHub repository mike007jd/game-superpowers (12 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 414 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
prototype
Concept prototype — validate the core idea is worth designing before writing GDDs. Run right after /brainstorm and /setup-engine. Routes to HTML, Engine, or Paper path based on game type. Produces a throwaway build and a PROCEED/PIVOT/KILL verdict.
review-all-gdds
Holistic cross-GDD consistency and game design review. Reads all system GDDs simultaneously and checks for contradictions between them, stale references, ownership conflicts, formula incompatibilities, and game design theory violations (dominant strategies, economic imbalance, cognitive overload, pillar drift). Run…
setup-engine
Configure the project's game engine and version. Pins the engine in CLAUDE.md, detects knowledge gaps, and populates engine reference docs via WebSearch when the version is beyond the LLM's training data.
ux-design
Guided, section-by-section UX spec authoring for a screen, flow, or HUD. Reads game concept, player journey, and relevant GDDs to provide context-aware design guidance. Produces ux-spec.md (per screen/flow) or hud-design.md using the studio templates.
architecture-review
Validates completeness and consistency of the project architecture against all GDDs. Builds a traceability matrix mapping every GDD technical requirement to ADRs, identifies coverage gaps, detects cross-ADR conflicts, verifies engine compatibility consistency across all decisions, and produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL…
asset-spec
Generate per-asset visual specifications and AI generation prompts from GDDs, level docs, or character profiles. Produces structured spec files and updates the master asset manifest. Run after art bible and GDD/level design are approved, before production begins.