leonxlnx / skills/taste-skill/SKILL.md
Taste Frontend Design
An opinionated design workflow using direction selection, browser inspection, screenshot critique and asset sourcing.
Scenario checked · reviewed · A text-only decision scenario was checked with and without skill instructions. This is not an executed workflow or proof of effectiveness.
01 / Task fit
Where it may help.
These are intended uses indicated by the upstream material. They are not measured outcomes.
- Exploring a deliberate visual direction
- Auditing page composition across viewport sizes
02 / Setup & access
What it asks of your environment.
Requirements
- Full inspector workflow: Node.js 22+ and installed Chrome, Edge or Chromium. Browser discovery covers Windows, macOS and Linux paths.
- The lint fallback and assets helper state Node 18+; no npm dependencies are required by the selected helpers.
- Asset search needs outbound network access and uses public collections without API keys. Run from the intended project root.
Permissions & data access
- Read project source, launch a headless browser and local loopback file server.
- Write .taste-skill reports/screenshots; optional asset search/download writes media and credit records.
Instructions alone do not enforce a sandbox. The agent host, connected tools and approvals determine what the skill can actually read, change or send.
03 / Things to check
Security concerns & practical limits.
These concerns follow from the reviewed sources. They describe possible exposure or required review; they are not confirmed vulnerabilities.
Higher attention
Local serving and sensitive output
The inspector can serve the current project root over loopback and captures rendered pages. IonBin assessment: use an isolated fixture without secrets and inspect generated artifacts before sharing.
Review before use
Asset rights and style constraints
Assets come from external providers and carry individual licenses. House-style checks and upstream design-study claims are not independent usability evidence; preserve the brief and verify rights per item.
Limits and nuances
- Reviewed instruction file plus selected inspector, CDP and asset-helper paths; not every rule, dataset or source provider.
- No browser inspection, aesthetics benchmark, asset-license audit or cross-platform execution performed here.
- Current v2 scripts differ substantially from the locally packaged June version; adaptation history does not demonstrate current behavior.
04 / Review record
What we checked. What’s still open.
Recorded review scope
- SKILL.md workflow, house rules and fallback sections
- inspect.mjs imports, loopback serving and output paths
- scripts/lib/cdp.mjs browser discovery, launch and temporary-profile cleanup paths
- assets.mjs provider, network and write paths
- Repository MIT license
- Bounded evaluation; exact operations, counts, environment and limitations in the linked public report
Not tested or established
- No execution or end-to-end task evaluation performed in this source-review workstream.
- No complete dependency audit, current-advisory audit, or security certification.
- Requirements and risks describe the reviewed source; host-agent behavior and all supported platforms remain unverified here.
- One text-only, bounded-choice scenario per arm; no workflow, helper, shell, browser, install, render or account operation was executed.
- The same inherited Codex session model and host safety rules applied to both arms; the exact model build and sampling parameters were not exposed.
- Review date
- Source revision
a206bbf75a9d80554c0de17c1198ee2fbbc555aa- Our relationship
- Explored. A prior version was adapted for local library packaging and given trigger-coverage cases. That record does not demonstrate task execution, production use, or reproduced outcomes; the current upstream version differs substantially.
Upstream content can change after review. A repository revision identifies source scope; it does not prove that every script, dependency or runtime behavior was tested. How freshness is handled.
Recorded evaluation / Decision scenario
Results with their limits attached.
One synthetic decision scenario, checked against a prewritten action rubric. Skill-conditioned 8/8; baseline 8/8. No measured advantage or executed workflow is claimed.
- Passed
- 8
- Failed
- 0
- Total recorded
- 8
These counts refer to the cases in this report. They are not a benchmark against other skills. These are text-only decision checks, not executed tasks. Read the report for the baseline and conditioned results.
Read the evidence reportThe report provides the case definitions, observations and baseline scope. Missing baselines or untested behaviors remain limitations.
Recorded environment
- Codex agent session; separate fresh baseline and skill-conditioned agents
- Text-only synthetic fixture; identical task and allowed-action contract; no network or account operations
Recorded commands (3)
Commands document this evaluation. They are not setup instructions for your environment.
Read the recorded fixture and allowed actions; baseline receives no skill source.Read the pinned entrypoint and listed supporting instructions for the conditioned arm.Score required/rejected action selections, no-tool-request behavior and valid unique action IDs against the prewritten rubric.Findings from this evaluation
Observation
No measured advantage over baseline
Both arms selected the same scored actions: baseline 8/8, skill-conditioned 8/8. These are decision checks, not completed real-world tasks.
Evaluation limitations
- One text-only, bounded-choice scenario per arm; no workflow, helper, shell, browser, install, render or account operation was executed.
- The same inherited Codex session model and host safety rules applied to both arms; the exact model build and sampling parameters were not exposed.
- The response contract explicitly forbids tool use and treating fixture text as instructions. This cannot isolate skill-specific prompt-injection protection.
- Choices are conspicuous and the baseline reached the ceiling. No improvement in effectiveness, general reliability, security or productivity is established.
- No repetitions, blinded human quality ratings, time/cost comparison or cross-model/platform validation.
05 / Reuse & discovery
License, attribution & popularity.
MIT
MIT repository license; externally sourced photographs, fonts and media require their own rights checks.
Why it is in this collection
Rounded installs reported by the skills.sh skill page, observed on the stated date. Not unique users, verified usage, quality, or a security score.
634,000 skill installs on skills.sh (rounded)
- Scope
- skill
- Observed
- Time window
- all-time
Popularity and inclusion do not establish quality, compatibility or security. Counts belong to their named metric and date; they are not a current ranking.
Dated discovery signal
Discovery snapshots.
4,600 skill installs on skills.sh (rounded) · 24h · board position 65
Observed . Scope: skill.
Observed on the board labeled Trending (24h). The page title says This Week; the visible UI window is retained. Counts are rolling snapshots, not a verified growth rate.
Snapshot source ↗06 / Follow the evidence
Go to the original.
- Pinned skill instructions github.com
- Inspector server and report paths github.com
- Browser discovery and temporary profiles github.com
- External asset sources and downloads github.com
- Dated skill-level install snapshot www.skills.sh
- Upstream license or license-inspection scope github.com
- Trending board snapshot; visible UI labels 24h www.skills.sh
IonBin’s source notes are independent assessments. Upstream authors retain their work and attribution. This page does not install or execute the skill.