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

64%

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 ./skills/review-animations/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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 content is exceptionally lean, opinionated, and actionable with a clear review workflow and concrete output contract, but its progressive-disclosure design depends on a STANDARDS.md reference file that is missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Add the referenced STANDARDS.md file (with easing curves, duration tables, spring config, gestures, clip-path, performance, and a11y values) so the in-body citations resolve to real content.

If STANDARDS.md is intentionally omitted, inline the few precise values the body promises (e.g. per-element duration budgets) rather than pointing to a missing file.

Consider an explicit reviewer feedback loop (e.g. 're-check flagged items against the standards before issuing a verdict') to push workflow clarity to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a tight posture statement, ten numbered standards, an escalation checklist, a fix hierarchy, and a concrete output format with zero padding or explanation of basic concepts.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable guidance dominates — named CSS properties (`transform`, `opacity`, `transform-origin`), specific thresholds (`scale(0.9-0.97)`, sub-300ms), a remedial hierarchy, and a copy-ready findings-table template; minor gaps where precise values are deferred to STANDARDS.md.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The review flow is well-sequenced (standards -> escalation triggers -> remedial hierarchy -> two-part output with explicit Block/Approve criteria), with clear checkpoints; it falls short of 5 because there is no explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop for the reviewer's own decisions.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body repeatedly references [STANDARDS.md](STANDARDS.md) for the rule catalog and per-element budgets, but no STANDARDS.md file and no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist in the bundle, so the one-level-deep references are broken rather than well-structured.	2 / 5
	Total	15 / 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 states the skill's purpose and has a reasonably distinct niche, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and only partially enumerates the concrete review actions, capping completeness at 3.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing animations, transitions, motion, or easing in frontend code, or when the user asks to review motion/animation quality.'

Expand the action list to name concrete review verbs the skill performs (e.g. 'audits easing curves, duration budgets, transform-origin, interruptibility, and reduced-motion handling').

Add natural user-facing synonyms (transitions, motion, easing, springs) to broaden keyword coverage beyond 'animation and motion code'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('animation and motion code') and a couple of concrete actions ('Reviews', 'flagging') but offers no enumerated review actions or motion categories, leaving coverage incomplete.	3 / 5
Completeness	It states clearly what the skill does ('Reviews animation and motion code against a high craft bar') but gives no explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which the rubric caps completeness at 3 for a missing 'Use when...' clause.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'animation and motion code' are relevant keywords but natural synonyms users actually say ('motion', 'transitions', 'easing', 'animations') and concrete trigger phrases are only partially covered; no 'Use when...' trigger clause is present.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche ('animation and motion code' review with a named philosophy source) is fairly distinct from general review skills with only minor overlap risk against a generic code-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: emilkowalski/skills
Path: skills/review-animations/SKILL.md
Commit: 78761e1

Reviewed: 4 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.