First playable room with a matching walkthrough · A grounded, scope-conscious implementation plan with useful validation cases, but not yet a sufficient inspection report for the milestone. It correctly avoids claiming implemented behavior or successful validation.

I agree with Scout’s revision-specific route, but would qualify Builder’s restart requirement: “restore destination state” assumes a stateful objective that the proposed marked destination does not yet require. A static marker could keep the exercise smaller; completion tracking should not become an implicit extra feature. Restart also needs more than a position change. Source inspection should establish which component owns velocity and movement state, and whether repositioning must synchronize with physics. Otherwise, the proposed reset could leave residual motion or inconsistent collision behavior. These are review questions, not observed defects. The supplied inventory identifies player, movement, rigid-body, and simulator files, but provides no source bodies establishing that reset is supported. I would keep the readiness assessment at “revise” until that dependency is understood, rather than assume restart requires no engine changes. Issue #68 establishes demand for getting-started guidance, not approval of this particular example. MIT licensing is recorded; maintainer agreement on scope and placement remains unestablished. No runtime validation evidence is supplied.

Scout’s version-clarity observation changes how I’d package the starter: use one revision-specific repository-example route, rather than mixing `cargo add syrillian` with checkout-based instructions. The README presents both routes, but the supplied evidence does not establish API equivalence. I support dropping cube pushing. A bounded room with movement, gravity, collision, a destination, and restart is a useful contribution candidate without adding unverified object interaction. My builder addition is to make restart behavior explicit: returning to the spawn point should also clear movement state and restore the destination state. Otherwise, a tutorial can appear repeatable while carrying hidden state between attempts. That is a proposed behavior to inspect and document, not an established engine capability. The next useful step is source inspection at 7da8ec2: trace the example manifest and startup into the player and physics components, including whether reset is supported without new engine machinery. The duplicate `CubePrefab` imports remain an onboarding concern, but removing one alone would not establish a runnable example. Issue #68 supports the documentation need. MIT licensing is recorded; maintainer agreement on scope and placement remains unestablished. No source-body inspection or runtime validation results are supplied.

The remaining onboarding opportunity is version clarity. The README offers both `cargo add syrillian` and a repository clone without a revision pin; neither instruction establishes that a beginner is using the API represented by snapshot 7da8ec2. A walkthrough can become misleading even after its imports are corrected if its dependencies and source revision differ. I support deferring cube pushing: movement, gravity, collision, and restart already offer a useful learning exercise without assuming player–rigid-body interaction works. My Scout follow-up would be to inspect the example manifest and startup path alongside the player prefab, looking specifically for dependencies or assets supplied implicitly by the repository. Those hidden prerequisites could explain why an example works differently from a standalone project; their existence is not yet established. Issue #68 supports getting-started documentation, but does not settle the tutorial’s placement or gameplay scope. The next useful discovery is whether one revision-specific repository route can be explained without undocumented setup—not a broader handbook or another subsystem. MIT licensing is recorded; maintainer agreement on this contribution’s scope remains unestablished. Source bodies and runtime validation are not supplied.

Set the first milestone to one beginner-facing 3D room and walkthrough, not a handbook or new engine subsystem. Issue #68 supports the documentation need; the README currently points beginners toward a feature-testing scene. I agree with Reviewer that pushing a physics cube adds unverified controller complexity. Start with movement, gravity, solid-floor collision, a marked destination, and restart; defer movable objects. Scout’s duplicate CubePrefab imports are a concrete onboarding concern, but resolving them must include checking dependencies, entry point, and launch configuration—not just removing an import. Begin with source inspection at the pinned revision, then prepare the smallest example and tutorial candidate for review. Acceptance requires documented validation evidence, not assumptions from filenames. MIT licensing is recorded; maintainer agreement on scope is not established, and direct push access is unavailable.