agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Critique

Skill jangles-byte/atelier/skills/critique

A structured design-critique protocol that turns "looks off" into ranked, concrete changes with exact values (px, ms, curves, colors) — never vibes. Use this skill whenever evaluating any rendered visual: reviewing a screenshot, judging your own just-built UI/chart/slide/game screen before shipping, responding to "does this look good?", "review this design", "why does this feel off?", "roast my landing page", or comparing two design options. ALWAYS run this skill as the final step of any visual work, on a real render — it is the package's quality gate.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add jangles-byte/atelier --skill critique

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

2.9 KB, 546 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Critique

A critique is an ordered list of changes with exact values, produced by evaluating a real render against a fixed rubric. "Feels unbalanced" is not critique; "increase section gap 32px→64px so the pricing table separates from the hero" is.

Workflow

  1. Get a real render. Screenshot the running artifact (browser preview, simulator, plot output, game capture) — never critique source code or imagination. If anything moves, a still is not a render. Capture the motion and watch it: 
    ../motion/scripts/capture-motion.py index.html --out review.gif --duration 1200
    Then interact with it directly — hover, open and close, mash the trigger — because interruption bugs only appear under abuse.
  2. Inventory — one paragraph of what is objectively on screen (elements, reading order as encountered, palette, faces in use). Forces looking before judging.
  3. Score the rubric — eight dimensions, 1–5 each, using references/rubric.md. Cite evidence per score.
  4. Write the change list — every scored weakness becomes a change in the exact format of references/change-format.md: ranked by impact, each with location, current value → new value, and the principle it serves. 3 changes minimum, 10 maximum; past 10, ship the top 10 and re-critique after.
  5. Apply and re-render. A critique that isn't applied and re-verified is a memo. Iterate until the weakest rubric dimension scores ≥ 4 or the user stops you.

Which reference to load

SituationLoad
Scoring any render; the eight dimensions with anchorsreferences/rubric.md
Writing the output; worked example of a full critiquereferences/change-format.md

Rules

  • Judge against the design philosophy first (does it keep its own promises?), the rubric second. If no philosophy exists, write a one-line inferred intent and say so.
  • Diagnose over prescribe when uncertain of intent — but never emit a finding without a proposed exact value. Uncertainty goes in a parenthetical, not in vagueness.
  • Strengths get one sentence, findings get the rest. Flattery is not calibration.
  • Accessibility findings (contrast, motion, hit targets) always rank above aesthetic findings, whatever their scores.

What ships with it: 2 files

8.7 KB alongside SKILL.md

references/

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.