Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/design-review/SKILL.md

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, context, agent

name	description	argument-hint	user-invocable	allowed-tools	context	agent
design-review	Reviews a game design document for completeness, internal consistency, implementability, and adherence to project design standards. Run this before handing a design document to programmers.	[path-to-design-doc]	true	Read, Glob, Grep	fork	Explore

Phase 1: Load Documents

Read the target design document in full. Read 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).

---

Phase 2: Completeness Check

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)

---

Phase 3: Consistency and Implementability

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)?

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?

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?

---

Phase 4: Output Review

## 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]

This skill is read-only — no files are written.

---

Phase 5: Next Steps

If the document being reviewed is game-concept.md or game-pillars.md:

• Check if design/gdd/systems-index.md exists. If not, recommend: "Run /map-systems to break the concept down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities, then write per-system GDDs."

If the document is an individual system GDD:

• If verdict is APPROVED: suggest updating the system's status to 'Approved' in the systems index.
• If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest updating the status to 'In Review'.

Next skill options:

• APPROVED → /create-epics or /map-systems
• NEEDS REVISION → revise the doc then re-run /design-review