pc-games
PC and console game development principles. Engine selection, platform features, optimization strategies.
Overall
score
61%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
33%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description provides a reasonable domain identification but lacks the specificity and completeness needed for effective skill selection. It reads more like a topic label than actionable guidance, missing concrete actions and explicit trigger conditions that would help Claude know when to select this skill over others.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks about game engines, console porting, platform-specific features, or game performance optimization'
Replace abstract categories with concrete actions: 'Compare game engines (Unity, Unreal, Godot), implement platform-specific features (achievements, controller input), optimize frame rates and memory usage'
Include natural trigger terms users would say: 'Steam', 'PlayStation', 'Xbox', 'Nintendo Switch', 'porting', 'frame rate', 'input lag', 'cross-platform'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (PC and console game development) and mentions some actions (engine selection, optimization strategies), but these are high-level categories rather than concrete specific actions like 'configure build pipelines' or 'implement input handling'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what (game development principles) but completely lacks any 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps this at 2, but the 'what' is also quite weak. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'game development', 'PC', 'console', 'engine', 'optimization', but misses common variations users might say like 'Unity', 'Unreal', 'porting', 'performance', 'frame rate', 'controller support', or 'cross-platform'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to PC/console games which distinguishes from mobile or web game development, but 'game development principles' and 'optimization strategies' are broad enough to potentially overlap with general programming or performance optimization skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill excels at token efficiency with excellent use of tables and decision trees to convey information densely. However, it reads more as a reference guide than an actionable skill - it tells Claude what to consider but not how to implement. The lack of executable code examples and concrete workflows limits its practical utility for actual game development tasks.
Suggestions
Add executable code snippets for at least one engine showing controller input abstraction implementation
Include a concrete workflow with validation steps for platform certification preparation (e.g., checklist with verification points)
Consider splitting detailed engine-specific guidance into separate referenced files (e.g., UNITY.md, GODOT.md, UNREAL.md) with implementation examples
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean and efficient. Uses tables and decision trees to convey maximum information with minimal tokens. No unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides good conceptual guidance through tables and decision trees, but lacks executable code examples. The input abstraction section shows pseudocode rather than actual implementation in any engine. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The decision tree provides clear sequencing for engine selection, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the development process. Profiling is mentioned but not integrated into a workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and tables, but everything is inline in one file. No references to external files for detailed topics like certification requirements or engine-specific deep dives that would benefit from separate documentation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
91%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.