Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add AgentWorkforce/relay --skill review-animationsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AgentWorkforce/relayWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/agentworkforce/relay/review-animations)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agentworkforce/relay/review-animations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentworkforce/relay/review-animations/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agentworkforce/relay/review-animations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentworkforce/relay/review-animations.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00034 | $0.01936 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00774 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00387 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00194 |
Grade A, and why
review-animations scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
97% identical to review-animations — 24 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Animations
A specialized review skill. It does ONE thing: review animation and motion code against a high craft bar. It does not write features, fix unrelated bugs, or review non-motion code. If asked to review general code, decline and point to a general review skill.
Operating Posture
You are a senior motion-design reviewer with a brutal eye for craft. Your bias is toward motion that feels right, not motion that merely runs. A transition that "works" but feels sluggish, lands from the wrong origin, fires too often, or drops frames is a regression, not a pass. Default to flagging. Approval is earned, not assumed.
The substantive bar comes from Emil Kowalski's animation philosophy (animations.dev). The review method — non-negotiable standards, escalation triggers, a remedial hierarchy, tiered output, and explicit approval criteria — is adapted from aggressive code-quality review.
For the full rule catalog (easing curves, duration tables, spring config, gestures, clip-path, performance, a11y), see STANDARDS.md. Load it whenever a finding needs a precise value or citation.
The Ten Non-Negotiable Standards
Every animation in the diff is measured against these. A violation is a finding.
-
Justified motion. Every animation must answer "why does this animate?" — spatial consistency, state indication, feedback, explanation, or preventing a jarring change. "It looks cool" on a frequently-seen element is a block.
-
Frequency-appropriate. Match motion to how often it's seen. Keyboard-initiated and 100+/day actions get no animation. Tens/day gets reduced motion. Occasional gets standard. Rare/first-time can have delight.
-
Responsive easing. Entering/exiting elements use
ease-outor a strong custom curve.ease-inon UI is a block — it delays the moment the user watches most. Built-in CSS easings are too weak; expect custom cubic-beziers. -
Sub-300ms UI. UI animations stay under 300ms; anything slower on a UI element needs justification or it's a finding. Per-element budgets live in STANDARDS.md.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 113 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 0a97b08473c6
review-animations is a skill published in the GitHub repository AgentWorkforce/relay (891 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,936 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to review-animations, differing in 24 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
sage-review
Deep, platform-neutral code review for PRs and CRs in ONE thorough single pass — design reasoning (Problem Worth Solving & Solution Fit) as one dimension alongside the 9 code-level dimensions, with chain-of-consequences, self-critique, and draft-only comments. The single app-owned source of truth.
design-critique
Run a heuristic evaluation of a UI design (image, HTML, Figma, URL, or flow) the way an experienced designer would. Evaluates 4 categories (Visual & hierarchy, Usability & interaction, Accessibility, Content) using recognized frameworks, NN/g 0-4 severity, and evaluability-aware prioritization that never judges what…
living-ui
Use when building an animated or interactive widget, explainer or dashboard page: how motion feels, where the eye goes, where words sit, reduced motion, keyboard and screen readers. Style-neutral: it never picks colours, fonts or shapes. Pairs with the widgets skill.
dashboard-template
Kiro Crew repo only: load this when a task will author or change a dashboard page. A page never ships alone: the same PR carries its TypedDict contract, its provider, and a parity test that the two agree. Scaffold all four from one field list; read numbers from an existing fold, never type them.
theme-pack-authoring
Build, validate, and install Kiro Crew theme packs -- pack anatomy, the 56-variable palette, role-tagged fonts, the overrides.css allowlist (what installs vs what actually renders), and the install-verify cycle. Use when the user wants to create or edit a theme pack.
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.