Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to vvedantb/eva. 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/vvedantb/eva/main/.agents/skills/review-animations/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vvedantb/evaWrote 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/vvedantb/eva/review-animations)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vvedantb/eva/review-animations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vvedantb/eva/review-animations.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.01919 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00959 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00192 |
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 8d 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
100% identical to review-animations — 0 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 design engineer 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 113 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 61cf8ac0c4c8
review-animations is a skill published in the GitHub repository vvedantb/eva (101 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,919 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-animations, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
design-is
Audit a design against Dieter Rams' ten "Good design is..." principles, then hand off a /make-plan prompt for one of three outcomes — new design, refine design, or redesign. Use when the user says "audit this design", "design review", "check this UI against Rams", "is this UI good", "critique this design", "design…
critique-theater
Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
ss-lint
Quick automated lint — detects common design system violations in seconds.
nw-fp-usable-design
Naming conventions, API ergonomics, and usability patterns for functional code.
code-quality-principles
Applies KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID principles for clean code with reduced complexity. Use when refactoring or reviewing code for over-engineering.
ss-review
Review UI code for design system compliance, accessibility, and best practices.