How is this different from Game QA & Playtest?

QA gathers observations and defects; this role judges a specific change against its criteria and available evidence. It delivers findings, a verdict and close conditions.

What can I submit for review?

A candidate source or diff, accepted rules, relevant scenes/assets and test results. A supplied code excerpt can support a bounded static review without a complete repository.

Will it fix the code during review?

This role keeps the reviewed change stable and gives actionable corrections to the implementation owner. Reproducing a suspected defect requires the relevant project tools or an isolated probe.

Do I need the full Game Squad?

No. The complete method and reference are included. This is one review role; the same underlying method is also part of Game Squad Agent Skills.

What does the preview show?

An illustrative static review of a cooldown function. It demonstrates findings and close conditions, rather than a recorded model session or engine test.

Can I use this for commercial development?

Yes. You may use it for personal or commercial project work. Keep purchased source materials private under Agensi's personal, non-transferable source license.

Game Review Specialist

Example session with this skill installed

Perform a bounded static review of this complete cooldown function. Accepted rule COOL-1: cooldown advances only through supplied simulation dt; pausing freezes that clock. Current excerpt C, Python: def ready(last_dash_wall, wall_now, paused): return wall_now - last_dash_wall >= 0.4. Caller supplies monotonic wall-clock seconds even while paused; paused is the actual pause flag. No repository hash, diff or runtime evidence exists. Identify the source-supported failure and close condition, keep code unchanged, and do not claim an engine run or redesign the accepted rule.

Read your context and instructions
Compiled the game review specialist

Illustrative preview: this representative editorial result is not a recorded runtime session.

task_id: COOLDOWN-REVIEW-1
artifact_id: STATIC-COOLDOWN-REPORT
version: 1
status: CHANGES_REQUESTED
producer / recipient: game reviewer / cooldown owner
objective / scope: Review the complete supplied function and caller-time premise against COOL-1.
inputs_and_sources: Excerpt C, accepted simulation-clock rule and the supplied wall-clock caller fact; no repository or runtime inspection.
confirmed_decisions: Pause freezes cooldown advancement; supplied wall time continues while paused.
recommendations_and_pending: Correct clock ownership; collect bound pause/boundary evidence for the new candidate.
criteria: COOL-1
next_action: Writer returns a corrected candidate and affected checks; reviewer inspects the new diff and evidence.

Game review record
review_outcome: CHANGES_REQUESTED
Candidate binding: Supplied excerpt C only; no commit/manifest/spec hash or build identity.
Coverage: Complete excerpt and the supplied caller fact; actual scene/input, engine scheduler, timing precision and exported build excluded.
Independence: Constrained static review in this context; writer/collector overlap is not supplied and separate-context independence is not established.

Finding F-1 — P2, established by supplied source and premise

Location: ready return expression.
Criterion: COOL-1.
Trigger: last dash is at wall time W; pause begins before eligibility; monotonic wall time subsequently reaches W+0.4 with no simulation time advance.
Expected: Pause alone cannot make the dash eligible.
Actual by source reasoning: The expression depends only on wall elapsed time and ignores paused, so it returns True at the threshold. This is not an executed observation.
Player consequence: The accepted cooldown contract can be bypassed by waiting while paused. No live incident or complete engine behavior is asserted.
Required action: Writer derives eligibility from the accepted simulation-clock state and preserves the requested boundary policy; do not merely infer a new duration or change gameplay.
Close condition: A candidate-bound test distinguishes running simulation advance from paused wall-time advance and demonstrates the accepted pre-boundary/boundary behavior. Actual scene clock/pause integration requires separate proof if feature acceptance includes it.

Criterion disposition: COOL-1 NOT_SATISFIED at the supplied function/caller boundary. Engine and exported-build acceptance UNPROVEN.
Evidence gaps: Immutable source and relevant caller bindings; independent oracle; raw pause/resume and threshold checks; engine/build evidence for any claimed integration scope.
Reviewer probes: None executed; no code change.
Outcome limit: A concrete contract failure is source-supported. The report authorizes neither a release nor a claim of proven fun, performance or platform compatibility.

Connects securely to your tools. The creator never sees your data.

About this skill

Give the feature a review that can change your next decision.

Game Review Specialist examines a game change against the behavior it was meant to deliver. It helps you catch contradictions in timing, input, saves and integration, while separating real defects from design preferences and missing information.

The method follows the affected player path through source, scenes, assets and supplied results. It asks whether the checks would still pass if the requested behavior were broken, and whether they apply to the current change. Each material finding connects a concrete trigger to its consequence and the correction or evidence needed to close it.

You receive

Focused findings with location, expected behavior, consequence and next action.
A criterion-by-criterion view of what the supplied change and results support.
A scoped review verdict that makes repair, additional checks or owner decisions clear.

For example, review a cooldown that uses wall time even though pause should freeze gameplay time. The specialist can explain the source-supported failure, preserve the agreed rule and identify the boundary checks a correction must satisfy.

Provide the candidate source or diff, accepted rules, relevant project context and available test results. The complete standalone method and reference are included. You supply AI access. Static review can work from supplied code; reproducing a defect or reviewing engine behavior requires the actual project and tools. This role reviews the change and routes repairs to the implementation owner.

How to use

Skills on Agensi run inside your AI agent. Copy the prompt, paste it into your agent, and it connects to Agensi and installs this skill for you. If a payment is needed, your agent shows it to you first.

Reviews

No reviews yet

Be one of the first to try it. Every listed skill passes our trust checks below.

Security scanned

Passed our 8-point scan before listing

Fresh listing

Recently published to Agensi

Money-back guarantee

Doesn't do what its page promises? You get your money back.

Game Review Specialist