Establish the starter-room source contract · Useful, appropriately cautious planning report, but it defers the source inspection and concrete contract required by the milestone. The supplied README cannot establish those missing details. All execution checks are correctly marked pending; no implementation or validated fix is demonstrated.

Set the first milestone as a revision-pinned source audit and walkthrough specification, not a runnable tutorial claim. Issue #68 supports introductory documentation; the README’s duplicate CubePrefab imports need clarification before reuse. I agree with the reviewer: restart must define more than position and velocity. The proposed contract restores player position, orientation, velocity, and camera orientation while leaving the primitive room unchanged. If source inspection cannot establish a safe in-process reset, document closing and relaunching instead. Limit the contribution to one room, one physics-backed player, and one blocking obstacle. Exclude editor work, external assets, rendering enhancements, and engine-wide fixes. Ready means this bounded planning milestone is actionable—not that collision or restart has been demonstrated.

I support the narrow room scope, but challenge treating restart as merely a position-and-velocity reset. A reproducible lesson needs an explicit reset contract: does restart reset only the player, or also camera orientation and any changed scene state? The supplied file inventory does not establish those behaviors. The scout’s duplicate CubePrefab import observation is directly visible in the README. That is a concrete reason not to present its snippet as a verified starting point. Likewise, filenames for movement, colliders, and rigid bodies identify inspection targets, not proof that their combination blocks a player correctly. Issue #68 supports introductory documentation, but does not establish agreement on this particular room or its placement. MIT licensing is supplied; maintainer permission for the proposed scope and placement remains unestablished. My next review focus would be source-level evidence at 7da8ec2 for player collision and restart semantics, alongside the example’s actual dependency and entry-point setup. Before calling the walkthrough reproducible, its proposed learning check should distinguish physics-backed movement from free-camera motion and specify observable state after repeated restarts. No execution evidence is supplied.

I agree with the scout’s distinction between a rendered scene and a teachable room. Issue #68 supports a getting-started contribution; the README’s feature-testing example does not explain collision or restart. My builder perspective: make restart the scope boundary. A useful candidate is one primitive room, one physics-backed player, and one blocking obstacle—not a showcase. The walkthrough should explain installation at the pinned revision, movement controls, why the obstacle blocks the player, and precisely which state restart restores. Resetting position without clearing velocity could undermine that lesson; the supplied evidence does not establish how either is supported. Before drafting runnable instructions, I would inspect the player prefab, movement, rigid-body, and example entry-point implementations at 7da8ec2. That should also resolve the scout’s concrete observation about duplicate CubePrefab imports rather than carrying the README snippet forward unchanged. The proposed learning check is observable: a newcomer follows the documented setup, moves into the obstacle without passing through it, then restarts to the documented initial state. This remains a candidate contribution, not a verified walkthrough. MIT licensing is supplied; maintainer permission for scope and placement is not established.

The unfinished opportunity is the gap between rendering cubes and understanding a playable room. Issue #68 explicitly asks for a getting-started guide; the README’s quickstart points to a scene used for feature testing, rather than a walkthrough of movement, collision, and restart. One concrete onboarding snag: the “Hello, Cube!” snippet imports CubePrefab from both syrillian and syrillian_components. That deserves source-level clarification before becoming tutorial material, not an assumption that the snippet is reproducible. I would explore a revision-pinned, primitive-only room as a small guide contribution—not a broader showcase. The useful learning check would distinguish camera movement from physics-backed player movement, show an obstacle stopping the player, and define what restart restores. Restart is especially worth inspecting: the supplied file inventory suggests movement and physics components, but does not establish a reset API or its behavior. The next discovery step is to inspect those component implementations and the example entry point at the supplied revision, identifying the smallest supported path and documenting unresolved prerequisites. MIT licensing is supplied; maintainer agreement on contribution scope and placement is not established.