Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to ahonn/dotfiles. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ahonn/dotfiles/master/.claude/skills/review-animations/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ahonn/dotfilesWrote 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/ahonn/dotfiles/review-animations)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ahonn/dotfiles/review-animations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ahonn/dotfiles/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/ahonn/dotfiles/review-animations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ahonn/dotfiles/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 | $0.00021 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00085 |
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 20d 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 — 161 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Animations
Review motion in the requested scope against a high craft bar. Follow the user's requested review scope and output format; for a mixed review, apply this method to the motion portion and use the appropriate method for the remaining code.
Review method
- Identify affected interactions, target platform, input modes, motion primitives, and existing product tokens. Inspect surrounding lifecycle code as needed.
- Trace entry, exit, cancellation, reversal, repeated input, and cleanup. Check accessibility equivalents and whether motion delays functional input.
- Observe the interaction when tools and runtime are available. Profile suspected rendering problems under representative load. Code inspection can prove a stale callback or missing cancellation path; it cannot establish subjective feel or actual dropped frames on its own.
- Report the smallest useful findings with location, trigger, impact, evidence, and a concrete correction. Do not manufacture findings to earn an approval verdict.
Standards with context
- Purpose and frequency: repeated actions should remain ready for immediate input. Keyboard-triggered motion is not automatically a defect.
- Response and timing: judge first feedback, readiness, and settling separately. Roughly 300 ms is a useful tuning reference for small UI, not a universal ceiling. Built-in easing, accelerating exits, and symmetric timings can be appropriate.
- Spatial coherence: scaling anchored overlays should communicate their source.
Centered modals, fades, deliberate morphs, and icon effects have different needs;
neither pure fade nor
scale(0)is automatically a violation. - Interruptibility: prove that reversal starts from a coherent visible state and that completion callbacks cannot corrupt newer state. Judge behavior rather than banning keyframes or assuming every spring preserves velocity.
- Rendering: prefer transform and opacity where they preserve intended behavior. Layout animation, clipping, blur, and library shorthand properties are investigation leads, not proof of poor performance. Check the installed version and target.
- Accessibility: honor the relevant platform's reduced-motion setting while keeping state changes, focus, and functionality intact. Static transitions are valid. Check touch, hover, and keyboard access where the changed interaction uses them.
- Cohesion: compare with surrounding product behavior. Blur, bounce, stagger, asymmetric timing, and custom curves are optional design choices.
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.
- 20d ago Changed · -33 lines · -13 tokens per session b568e2004d70
- 1mo ago First seen · 113 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 27c1ec78634a
review-animations is a skill published in the GitHub repository ahonn/dotfiles (63 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 854 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 161 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Intelligent PR code review with dynamic agent allocation based on change types. Analyzes PR changes and generates targeted review tasks.
analyze-pr
Analyze a GitHub/GitLab Pull Request by fetching its diff, reading its web description, and generating a comprehensive document. Use when the user provides a PR link and wants to understand what changes the PR introduces, or asks to review/analyze/summarize a pull request.
assess-quality
Foundational quality framework: the five questions (readable, easy to start, expands without bloat, consistent, intentional) every other dev skill is judged against, plus the dual-audience and workshop principles. Use when onboarding to a project, defining a quality bar, setting an assessment checklist, or arbitrating…
merge-ready
Drive an existing pull request to a mergeable state: get CI green, resolve merge conflicts with the base branch, address and resolve review comments, trigger required bot reviews/approvals (e.g. commenting '@claude review'), link associated issues, and clean up the PR title and description. Ends with a readiness…
check-project
Validate project structure against scaffold conventions -- check for required files, CI consistency, documentation completeness, sub-package/workspace members, and optional directory usage, reporting PASS/WARN/FAIL with fix suggestions. Use to audit an existing project or verify a scaffold was applied correctly. Do…
review-diff
Standardized review of the CURRENT working-tree changes -- staged, unstaged, and untracked -- against an explicit five-dimension rubric (correctness, security, tests, scope-creep, conventions). Emits a prioritized findings list, each with file:line, severity, and a suggested fix. Read-only: it reviews and reports, it…