review-animations

Reviews animation and motion code against a high craft bar derived from Emil Kowalski's design engineering philosophy. Default to flagging; approval is earned.

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/review-animations/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is review-animations in emilkowalski/skills

Quality

Content

90%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a tightly written, highly actionable review rubric with concrete standards, escalation triggers, and a defined output format. Its only real gap is the missing STANDARDS.md bundle file that the body repeatedly points to.

Suggestions

Provide the referenced STANDARDS.md bundle file so the cited easing curves, duration tables, spring configs, and per-element budgets actually exist for the skill to load.

Add an explicit verification step in the review workflow (e.g. confirm each finding cites file:line and a STANDARDS.md value before emitting the verdict) to serve as a validation checkpoint.

Consider a short in-body fallback table of the most-cited values (e.g. default UI duration, default ease-out curve) so the skill is still useful if STANDARDS.md cannot be loaded.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense signal throughout — ten standards, an escalation list, a remedial hierarchy, and an output format — with no padding about concepts Claude already knows, assuming competence at every step.	5 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is fully concrete: exact values (scale(0.9-0.97), <300ms, transform-origin), an enumerated property list, and copy-paste-ready before/after pairs in the findings table with file:line citations.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The review process is clearly sequenced (standards -> escalation triggers -> remedial hierarchy -> table+verdict output -> Block/Approve decision), but there are no explicit validate/re-run feedback checkpoints, which is acceptable for a read-only review yet keeps it just short of the top anchor.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is clean with STANDARDS.md referenced three times at one level of depth and clearly signaled, but the referenced bundle file does not actually exist in the skill directory, so navigation is incomplete.	4 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description clearly conveys what the skill does and carves out a distinct niche, but it omits any explicit 'when to use it' trigger guidance and has limited keyword coverage. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger terms would raise its scores.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing animation, transitions, easing, springs, or Framer Motion/motion code in a diff.'

Expand trigger-term coverage with natural synonyms users say ('transitions', 'easing', 'springs', 'gesture animations', 'Framer Motion').

List a second concrete action beyond 'reviews against a craft bar' (e.g. 'flags feel-breaking regressions and proposes GPU-friendly fixes').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("animation and motion code") and one concrete review action ("against a high craft bar"), but offers no list of several specific actions, matching the anchor for one-to-two concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (review animation/motion code against a craft bar), but there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger clause, so completeness caps at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant natural terms ("animation", "motion code", "motion") appear, but common variations like transitions, easing, Framer Motion, and springs are absent.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The animation/motion-review niche is mostly distinct and the skill explicitly declines general code review, leaving only minor overlap risk with a general review skill.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
relative_links	Relative link issues: 3 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: 1weiho/open-slide
Path: .agents/skills/review-animations/SKILL.md
Commit: dad4c24

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.