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

60%

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 ./.cursor/skills/review-animations/SKILL.md

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

Quality

Content

67%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 well-organized, actionable, and concise with a clear review workflow and a strong findings-table/tiered-verdict structure. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: it depends on a STANDARDS.md reference that is not present in the bundle, leaving navigation to a missing file.

Suggestions

Include the referenced STANDARDS.md (or place it under references/) so the inline citations resolve to a real file; otherwise inline the essential easing/duration values.

Tighten the overlap between the 'Ten Non-Negotiable Standards' and 'Aggressive Escalation Triggers' sections, which restate several of the same rules.

Add an explicit validation/retry note for borderline cases (e.g. 're-review in slow motion / frame-by-frame before finalizing a Block') to strengthen the feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and mostly efficient, assuming Claude's competence (no 'what is an animation' padding); a few sections restate standards twice across the Ten Standards, Escalation Triggers, and Hierarchy, but on the whole it earns its tokens.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready table rows with Before/After/Why examples and exact remediation moves (e.g. 'scale(0)' -> 'scale(0.95); opacity: 0'); minor gaps are precise easing/duration values deferred to STANDARDS.md.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequenced output workflow (Part 1 findings table -> Part 2 tiered verdict -> explicit Block/Approve decision) with tier ordering and approval criteria; lacks an explicit validate/retry feedback loop, though the review task is non-destructive so the 3-cap does not apply.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body repeatedly references [STANDARDS.md](STANDARDS.md) as a one-level-deep reference, but that file is not present in the bundle (references/ is absent and STANDARDS.md is missing), so the navigation points to a non-existent file and the bulk standards are not actually split out.	2 / 5
	Total	14 / 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 states a clear, focused 'what' but omits any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3. Trigger terms are domain-relevant but lack the natural phrasings and synonyms a user would actually say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to review animations, transitions, motion, or micro-interactions.'

Broaden trigger-term coverage with natural synonyms users say ('animations', 'transitions', 'motion design', 'micro-interactions') rather than only 'animation and motion code'.

List a couple of concrete review actions (e.g. 'flags easing, duration, origin, and performance regressions') to lift specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('animation and motion code') and the concrete act of reviewing against a craft bar, but lists only one action rather than multiple specific capabilities.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (review animation/motion code against a craft bar) but there is no 'Use when...' clause; 'when' is only weakly implied by 'Default to flagging'.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes 'animation', 'motion code', and 'craft', but lacks natural trigger phrases a user would say (e.g. 'review my animations', 'motion design', 'transitions') and any file/extension terms.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is fairly distinct (animation/motion review) with a clear posture, though it could overlap with a general code-review skill; minor overlap risk only.	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: MODSetter/SurfSense
Path: .cursor/skills/review-animations/SKILL.md
Commit: d96e29d

Reviewed: 8 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.