Blender lighting material planner

Skill ThanhNguyxnOrg/blendops/skills/blender-lighting-material-planner

AI-native Blender workflow and skill pack for non-Blender users, built around official Blender MCP, Claude Blender Connector, and Blender CLI.

Install

npx -y skills add ThanhNguyxnOrg/blendops --skill blender-lighting-material-planner

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Build detailed lighting and material direction with portability and caveat handling for Blender/web-3D outputs.

SKILL.md

5.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

blender-lighting-material-planner

Purpose

Create a high-quality, practical lighting/material plan that balances visual intent and web portability constraints.

Quick start

confirm this skill fits your goal
provide required inputs first
keep runtime claims evidence-bound
follow suggested next-skill handoff

When to use

look-development strategy is needed
lighting/material choices drive scene mood
web/GLB portability caveats must be explicit

When not to use

to claim final rendered quality
to skip composition/camera context

Trigger phrases

"plan lighting and materials"
"design cyberpunk lookdev"
"define PBR and reflection strategy"

Prerequisites / readiness

subject/composition plan exists
output destination is known
runtime mode status known (text-only/runtime-ready/blocked)

Input schema

Required inputs

style intent
subject material constraints
output destination

Optional inputs

brand color/style constraints
performance budget hints
preferred mood references

Assumptions to confirm

realism vs stylized priority
reflection intensity tolerance
portability strictness for web handoff

Output schema

Primary output

lighting strategy + material strategy

Secondary output

portability simplification recommendations

Evidence / caveat output

unverified visual assumptions
Not Run caveats when runtime unavailable

Required laws

../../laws/evidence-before-done.md
../../laws/non-blender-user-language.md
../../laws/official-runtime-only.md
../../laws/no-arbitrary-python-interface.md

Official runtime boundary

This skill produces planning guidance only. It does not run Blender or claim runtime-produced results.

Operating procedure

Define lighting objective (readability vs drama balance).
Choose key/fill/rim strategy.
Add neon/cyberpunk accent pattern where requested.
Define reflective floor behavior and caveats.
Choose material classes and hierarchy.
Define PBR portability assumptions.
Identify web simplification opportunities.
Define texture/material naming expectations.
Add GLB/web handoff caveats.
Provide user-facing summary with uncertainty markers.

Decision tree

If style is cyberpunk + product clarity required → neon accents + controlled reflections.
If web performance priority high → simplify material stack and reflection complexity.
If portability uncertain → keep assumptions explicit and request runtime validation.

Playbooks

Playbook A: text-only planning path
Playbook B: runtime-ready path with evidence gating
Playbook C: blocked runtime path with caveat-first reporting

Mode handling

Text-only mode

produce lookdev plan only
mark visual evidence as Not Run

Runtime-ready mode

include validation targets for downstream runtime checks

Blocked runtime mode

provide conservative plan and caveats
no rendered output claim

Validation checklist

Pass / Warn / Fail rubric

Category	Pass	Warn	Fail
Lighting strategy	Clear and goal-aligned	Basic but usable	Missing/contradictory
Material strategy	Coherent and portable-aware	Partial portability	No portability consideration
Web caveats	Explicit and actionable	Present but vague	Missing caveats
Evidence boundary	No visual overclaims	Minor ambiguity	Claims rendered results without evidence

Failure handling

Missing style detail: request targeted clarification.
Conflicting constraints: output option sets with trade-offs.
Unknown runtime state: keep plan-only with explicit caveats.

Troubleshooting

Overly harsh reflections: reduce floor reflectance assumptions.
Muddy lighting plan: simplify key/fill ratio assumptions.
Material complexity too high for web: propose simplification tiers.

Best practices

prioritize readability before stylization extremes
map each lookdev decision to user-facing outcome
preserve portability caveats explicitly

Good examples

“Use key+soft fill for product readability, neon rim accents for mood, and limit reflective floor intensity to avoid detail washout in web contexts.”

Bad examples

“Make it look cool with neon materials.” (no constraints, no caveats)

User-facing response template

Lighting plan summary
Material plan summary
Portability caveats
Next validation step

Anti-patterns

skipping required laws or runtime boundary statements
claiming runtime/artifact success without evidence
using non-official runtime setup paths
producing jargon-heavy final output without explanation

Cross-skill handoff

Next: blender-scene-quality-checker
Then: glb-web-handoff

Non-goals

shader/runtime implementation code
rendered quality claims without evidence

References

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.