Blender recipe decomposer
Skill ThanhNguyxnOrg/blendops/skills/blender-recipe-decomposer
AI-native Blender workflow and skill pack for non-Blender users, built around official Blender MCP, Claude Blender Connector, and Blender CLI.
npx -y skills add ThanhNguyxnOrg/blendops --skill blender-recipe-decomposerAssembled 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
Break a complex / over-scoped Blender intent into 2-5 smaller recipes that each have a clean stop condition, brief, and handoff.
SKILL.md
7.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
blender-recipe-decomposer
Purpose
When user intent is too big for one recipe (multiple deliverables, mixed modes, conflicting briefs), split it into smaller recipes that each fit the BlendOps recipe shape (brief → plan → assets → runtime → handoff).
Quick start
- enumerate the deliverables in the intent
- group them into 2-5 cohesive recipe-sized chunks
- name each new recipe + assign a brief + stop condition
- pin recipe order (linear or parallel-OK)
When to use
- intent has multiple distinct deliverables (e.g., hero render + animation + GLB + variant grid)
- intent crosses multiple scene types (portrait + environment in one ask)
- previous attempts collapsed under their own scope
- before any planner runs
When not to use
- single deliverable; recipe is already right-sized
- pure exploration / brainstorming
- after recipes have started running (use scope-boundary-enforcer or stop-condition-decider instead)
Trigger phrases
- "I want all of these"
- "this is a lot"
- "we'll need several outputs"
- "across these scenes"
Prerequisites / readiness
- intent stated by user (or extractable)
- user accepts that splitting will yield more reliable output
Input schema
Required inputs
| Input | Why it is required |
|---|---|
| Full user intent | Source for decomposition |
| Acceptable recipe count target (2-5 typical) | Constrains over-splitting |
Optional inputs
| Input | Use |
|---|---|
| Time / budget per recipe | Affects sizing |
| Deliverable priority | Drives recipe order |
Assumptions to confirm
- Splitting is acceptable (not all users want this).
- Each new recipe will need its own brief.
- Some shared assets across recipes is OK; design re-use early.
Output schema
Primary output
A recipe table: name, brief seed (one line), stop condition (one line), order, dependencies, handoff target.
Secondary output
- shared assets list (used by 2+ recipes)
- recommended start recipe
- explicit out-of-scope reminder for each recipe
Evidence / caveat output
Runtime status: Not Run | Attempted | Produced | Verified | Failed | Blocked / Not Run
Artifact status: Not Run | Not Produced | Produced | Verified | Failed
Evidence used: <links, paths, logs, or "none">
Limitations: <known gaps>
Required laws
../../laws/evidence-before-done.md../../laws/non-blender-user-language.md../../laws/no-arbitrary-python-interface.md../../laws/official-runtime-only.md
Official runtime boundary
Process / discipline skill — does not run Blender. Splits intent into recipe specs only.
Operating procedure
- Read full intent.
- Enumerate distinct deliverables.
- Group deliverables into 2-5 cohesive recipes (see
references/recipe-grouping-rules.md). - For each recipe, write: name, brief seed, stop condition, order, dependencies.
- Identify shared assets across recipes.
- Recommend start recipe.
- Hand each recipe off to
intent-to-3d-brief-writerfor full brief.
Decision tree
Single deliverable?
→ No decomposition needed; pass to brief writer directly
2-5 distinct deliverables?
→ Group + decompose
6+ deliverables?
→ Strongly recommend product backlog approach; do not handle as single intent
Conflicting briefs (e.g., realistic + stylized in one ask)?
→ Split by style; do not merge
Shared assets across all deliverables?
→ Plan asset recipe first; downstream recipes consume it
Playbooks
Playbook A: Hero + variants + animation (3 recipes)
- Hero static render (base recipe).
- Color variants grid (consumes hero scene + asset).
- Animation loop on hero (consumes hero scene; new export).
Playbook B: Portrait + environment + product (3 recipes, parallel-OK)
- Character portrait scene.
- Environment establishing shot.
- Product hero render. Each independent; parallel execution acceptable.
Playbook C: Multi-pack catalog (5 recipes)
- Asset library prep (shared).
- Product 1 hero.
- Product 2 hero.
- Product 3 hero.
- Catalog grid composite. Recipes 2-4 can run parallel; recipe 5 depends on 2-4.
Mode handling
Text-only mode
Decomposition into recipe specs; no runtime claims.
Runtime-ready mode
Recipe specs include runtime path attribution per recipe (each recipe may use a different path).
Blocked runtime mode
Decomposition still useful; runtime per-recipe marked Blocked until paths available.
Validation checklist
- Distinct deliverables enumerated
- Recipe count 2-5
- Each recipe has name + brief seed + stop condition
- Order + dependencies explicit
- Shared assets identified
- Start recipe recommended
- Out-of-scope per recipe stated
Pass / Warn / Fail rubric
| Verdict | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Pass | 2-5 cohesive recipes + name + brief + stop + order + handoff. |
| Warn | Recipes present but stop conditions soft, or order unclear. |
| Fail | One mega-recipe still; > 5 over-split fragments; missing stop conditions; no order. |
Failure handling
- Single mega-recipe → forced to split per
recipe-grouping-rules.md. -
5 fragments → consolidate adjacent ones.
- User refuses split → document as risk; warn that gates and stop conditions will be hard to maintain.
Troubleshooting
| Problem | Response |
|---|---|
| Decomposed recipes have heavy dependencies | Re-group to reduce coupling; consider shared-asset pre-recipe. |
| Recipes overlap in scope | Re-draw boundaries; eliminate overlap. |
| Recipe order ambiguous | Pick one (typically asset-first → main render → variants → composite); justify. |
Best practices
- Keep recipes 2-5; outside that range usually wrong-sized.
- Plan shared assets early; reduces rework.
- Name recipes after the deliverable, not the process.
- Hand off each recipe to
intent-to-3d-brief-writerfor full brief.
Good examples
- "Recipes (3): (1) shoe-hero-render —
out/hero.png, (2) shoe-color-variants-grid —out/grid.png, (3) shoe-orbit-animation —out/orbit.glb. Order: 1 → 2 (variant uses hero scene) → 3 (animation uses hero scene). Shared assets: shoe-base-mesh, hero-lighting-rig. Start: recipe 1."
Bad examples
- "We'll do it all in one go." — no decomposition.
User-facing response template
User intent (full): <…>
Deliverables enumerated: <list>
Recipes:
| # | Name | Brief seed | Stop condition | Order | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shared assets: <list>
Recommended start: <recipe name>
Each recipe hands off to: intent-to-3d-brief-writer
Limitations: <gaps>
Anti-patterns
- Single mega-recipe.
-
5 fragmented recipes.
- Recipes without stop conditions.
- Skipping the dependency analysis.
Cross-skill handoff
- After decomposition, each recipe →
../intent-to-3d-brief-writer/SKILL.md - Workflow gates per recipe →
../blender-checklist-driven-workflow/SKILL.md - Stop condition per recipe →
../blender-stop-condition-decider/SKILL.md
Non-goals
- Run Blender.
- Author full briefs (that is for
intent-to-3d-brief-writer). - Render or export anything.
References
references/recipe-grouping-rules.mdreferences/dependency-patterns.mdreferences/recipe-naming-rules.md../../docs/skill-system.md