review-game

Performance Notes

• Take your time to do this thoroughly
• Quality is more important than speed
• Do not skip validation steps

Review Game

Analyze an existing game codebase and provide a structured review. This is the final step in the pipeline — it checks everything is wired up correctly and gives you a quality score.

Instructions

Analyze the game at $ARGUMENTS (or the current directory if no path given).

Step 1: Identify the game

• Detect the engine (Three.js, Phaser, or other)
• Read package.json for dependencies and scripts
• Read the main entry point and index.html
• Identify the game concept/genre

Step 2: Architecture Review

Check for these required patterns and report compliance:

• [ ] EventBus: Is there a centralized event system? Are modules decoupled?
• [ ] GameState: Is there a centralized state singleton?
• [ ] Constants: Are config values centralized or scattered as magic numbers?
• [ ] Orchestrator: Is there a main Game class that initializes everything?
• [ ] Directory Structure: Is code organized into core/systems/gameplay/ui/level layers?
• [ ] Event Constants: Are events defined as named constants or raw strings?

Step 3: Performance Review

Check for common issues:

• [ ] Delta time capping: Is getDelta() capped to prevent death spirals?
• [ ] Object pooling: Are temp objects reused in hot loops?
• [ ] Resource disposal: Are Three.js geometries/materials/textures disposed?
• [ ] Event cleanup: Are event listeners cleaned up on scene transitions?
• [ ] Asset loading: Are assets preloaded with progress feedback?

Step 4: Code Quality

• [ ] No circular dependencies: Modules flow one direction
• [ ] Single responsibility: Each module has one clear job
• [ ] Error handling: Event handlers wrapped in try/catch
• [ ] Consistent naming: Events use domain:action, files use PascalCase

Step 5: Monetization Readiness

• [ ] Points system: Is there a scoring/points mechanism?
• [ ] Session tracking: Can game sessions be identified?
• [ ] Anti-cheat potential: Is score validation server-side or at least structured for it?
• [ ] Play.fun integration: Any existing SDK integration?

Output Format

Provide a structured report with:

1. Game Overview - What the game is, tech stack, game loop
2. Architecture Score (out of 6 checks)
3. Performance Score (out of 5 checks)
4. Code Quality Score (out of 4 checks)
5. Monetization Readiness (out of 4 checks)
6. Top Recommendations - Prioritized list of improvements with plain-English explanations
7. What's Working Well - Positive findings

Example Usage

/review-game examples/flappy-bird

Result: Architecture 6/6, Performance 4/5, Code Quality 4/4, Monetization 2/4 → Top recommendations: add Play.fun SDK, add object pooling for pipes, add delta time capping. Positive findings: clean EventBus usage, proper GameState reset, well-organized directory structure.

Next Step

Tell the user:

Your game has been through the full pipeline! Here's what you have: - Scaffolded architecture (/viral-game) - Visual polish (/design-game) - Music and sound effects (/add-audio) - Automated tests (/qa-game) - Architecture review (/review-game) (Reflects the `/viral-game` one-shot pipeline. If you're working through `/make-game`, the equivalent state is "post-scaffold-phase + first development milestone shipped".) What's next? - Add new gameplay features with /game-creator:add-feature [description] - Deploy to the web — run npm run build && ~/.agents/skills/here-now/scripts/publish.sh dist/ for instant hosting, or use GitHub Pages, Vercel, Netlify, itch.io - Keep iterating! Run /design-game, /add-audio, or /review-game again anytime after making changes.