Why the user-owned agent model matters
Image to Three.js is deliberately different from a hosted generation button. A procedural reconstruction is a coding task: the agent must inspect the project, write and run scripts, create a component hierarchy, render the current pass, compare evidence, and revise the source. Running that loop inside the user project keeps the agent close to the real codebase and avoids a second remote agent that cannot see local conventions.
The PLAYTEX page is the live connection surface for that work. It creates a private expiring session, provides the exact publishing contract, and polls for structured status, source, preview, and evidence. The visitor keeps talking to the coding agent they already trust while the browser becomes a focused display and review surface.
The privacy boundary is explicit: the reference remains local, while generated output is transmitted because showing it in the browser is the purpose of the session. Capability tokens are separate by role, retained only in the browser tab or agent conversation, and invalid after the session expires.
Why a staged sculpt is more reliable than one-shot code
A recognizable model usually fails through accumulation: a slightly wrong silhouette, generic topology, detached appendages, flat materials, missing fasteners, and a camera chosen to hide the weak side. A one-shot prompt can produce many lines of Three.js and still miss the object identity. The staged workflow makes those errors observable before they become expensive.
The quality contract locks the important features first. Blockout proves scale and silhouette. Structure proves hierarchy and attachment. Form adds the characteristic contours. Material work separates albedo, roughness, metalness, normal, and other physical channels. Lighting exposes the form. Interaction adds pivots, sockets, and colliders. Optimization reduces cost without deleting the features that made the object recognizable.
How to ask for a useful revision
A good revision request names the observed mismatch and the evidence view. For example: the top flange is too wide in the three-quarter comparison, the rear housing collapses from the orbit view, or the paint is too glossy compared with the reference crop. The agent should decide whether that means the sculpt spec is wrong or the implementation failed to match a sound spec.
Preserve unrelated parts when revising. Ask the agent to update the factory, spec, result notes, and evidence together. That keeps the artifact set internally consistent and prevents a model from looking revised while its documented hierarchy, material values, or limitations still describe the older version.