Concept seems fun, and I'm expecting we'll see a bunch of those in the next few weeks/months. UX of that specific page seems broken, however, as the container for the explanation of each "function" doesn't scroll along with the rest of the content (stays stuck at the top) and makes it impossible to see.
Author here. That's actually great feedback. I accidentally broke the container scroll with a single line CSS change to fix something else, ugh. Should be fixed now.
Works now! Another free suggestion: when you drag a bit fast, since the animation is a bit slow, sometimes the boundary between before/after will barely move before your cursor makes it to the edge and reset to the middle, which is a bit jarring / doesn't let me really see anything. Should either make the animation faster, or put the reset threshold outside of the container somehow.
Author here. Fair. Mentioned this in another reply, but yes, the case study examples were poor, and I shouldn't have shipped those. Ironically I've used these design commands on a production project very effectively, and hence decided to open source, but couldn't screenshot the real examples as the project has not launched. I've removed the lackluster examples for now.
poor choice indeed, and I say this as the one who put the example there.. I rushed and tried to make a case of removing the AI slop aesthetics but you're right, got functionally worse. The examples didn't communicate the value, removed and will replace with better ones.
"Great design prompts require design vocabulary. Most people don't have it."
Vocabulary is just the surface. Beneath it is an understanding of how to achieve your goals with design. How to make things that are easy to use, accessible, that create a certain impression.
Does this website (presumably made with the help of these AI tools) show this kind of understanding of design? Not really. It's chaotic, the text is often hard to read and there is a ton of fluff, both in terms of visuals and copy.
There is a "Frequently Asked Questions" section and a "Popular" $100 tier in the "Support the Project" section, even though this project seems to be brand new. Why lie to the reader?
Author here. Thanks for the feedback. Vocabulary helps in my experience, but definitely doesn't make the user or the LLM a great designer.
I toned down some of the language on the landing page, as it had sometimes too much snake-oil-salesman-energy, should not oversell. I've also toned down fluff, fixed some typography issues. I rushed the landing page and example case studies to get this shipped, whereas the actual skill and commands my colleagues and I have been using effectively on real projects (that I can't screenshot yet), and the open sourcing is a side product. Lesson learned!
I also hear you on the "Popular" $100 tier. That was a side effect of Claude Code trying to make this too "SaaS-y", and I admittedly didn't love it and shouldn't have shipped that language. While it might work for SaaS, this project isn't intended to be SaaS, and just open source for the community in the hopes that it helps somebody the way it helped me, so I toned it down significantly.
They set themselves up for a fall when they named themselves "Impeccable Style"
The mix of sans and serif fonts on their website is a mess. There's too much negative space, and it's inconsistent. Too many font sizes, and some that are so tiny they're illegible.
In the landing page before/after example, I think the "before" design looks more appealing.
Author here. I ironically spent a lot more time crafting the commands and skill, and not enough time on the landing page. Agree that I overdid it on "editorial look" to match the cheeky domain name. Thank you for the feedback, I've hopefully now improved consistency and negative space issues.
It's interesting to see people creating and 'selling' agent skills. This one asks for donations, but I was expecting to see a stripe link and 'download for 4 dollars, yours forever' (personally I think that would convert better...)
I wonder if there will be full-blown skill marketplaces soon. Would that be a way for some experts to recoup some (presumably very small portion) of the income they might lose due to generative AI market effects?
The "Before" examples look infinitely better than the "After" examples. Tells you all you need to know. Wouldn't be at all surprised if this whole thing was a ridiculous joke or a satirical commentary on pretentious design.
Author here. Not a joke, but the case study examples were poor, and I shipped them anyway. Ironically I've used these commands on a production project very effectively, and hence decided to open source, but couldn't screenshot the real examples as the project has not launched. I've removed the lackluster examples for now.
That landing page example is devastatingly bad. You start with a page that has usage numbers, uptime, support 24/7 and a customer rating above the fold. You end up with a page that lacks all of these advantage and instead looks bland and has horrible typography and even less text contrast.
In line with that, the Dashboard looks more organized in the "after" picture, but that's because it lost most of its useful information.
Author here. I agree that that wasn't a strong example. I wasn't happy with the outcome of those before/after examples, it was rushed before the launch, and I shouldn't have shipped it. Removed. I mostly use these commands on smaller targeted sections on projects that I unfortunately can't screenshot, the case study examples where rushed and didn't communicate the value. Removed them for now, until I can fill in better, real examples.
What a tittle, almost makes you feel good for vibe coding out slop without knowing half of what is going on. What are even the examples marginal css changes on already perfectly good designs?
If you want to look at the bright side, this design guide will be easier to spot SAAS, slop as a service.
37 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 50.0 ms ] threadVocabulary is just the surface. Beneath it is an understanding of how to achieve your goals with design. How to make things that are easy to use, accessible, that create a certain impression.
Does this website (presumably made with the help of these AI tools) show this kind of understanding of design? Not really. It's chaotic, the text is often hard to read and there is a ton of fluff, both in terms of visuals and copy.
There is a "Frequently Asked Questions" section and a "Popular" $100 tier in the "Support the Project" section, even though this project seems to be brand new. Why lie to the reader?
I toned down some of the language on the landing page, as it had sometimes too much snake-oil-salesman-energy, should not oversell. I've also toned down fluff, fixed some typography issues. I rushed the landing page and example case studies to get this shipped, whereas the actual skill and commands my colleagues and I have been using effectively on real projects (that I can't screenshot yet), and the open sourcing is a side product. Lesson learned!
I also hear you on the "Popular" $100 tier. That was a side effect of Claude Code trying to make this too "SaaS-y", and I admittedly didn't love it and shouldn't have shipped that language. While it might work for SaaS, this project isn't intended to be SaaS, and just open source for the community in the hopes that it helps somebody the way it helped me, so I toned it down significantly.
Renaissance Geek (noun)
A person who moves fluidly between art, technology, narrative, and systems — guided by curiosity instead of specialization.
With AI as their amplifier, this breadth makes them dangerous enough to build the future rather than be shaped by it.
The mix of sans and serif fonts on their website is a mess. There's too much negative space, and it's inconsistent. Too many font sizes, and some that are so tiny they're illegible.
In the landing page before/after example, I think the "before" design looks more appealing.
Of user interface style: low contrast and hence poor readability, with excessive white space.
It's interesting to see people creating and 'selling' agent skills. This one asks for donations, but I was expecting to see a stripe link and 'download for 4 dollars, yours forever' (personally I think that would convert better...)
I wonder if there will be full-blown skill marketplaces soon. Would that be a way for some experts to recoup some (presumably very small portion) of the income they might lose due to generative AI market effects?
That landing page example is devastatingly bad. You start with a page that has usage numbers, uptime, support 24/7 and a customer rating above the fold. You end up with a page that lacks all of these advantage and instead looks bland and has horrible typography and even less text contrast.
In line with that, the Dashboard looks more organized in the "after" picture, but that's because it lost most of its useful information.
If you want to look at the bright side, this design guide will be easier to spot SAAS, slop as a service.
This is something I hate: gray text. Designers love it but it is often very illegible because of inadequate contrast.