Jury
Score any website the way an Awwwards jury would, from evidence alone.
Install
npx skills add juliobsz/skills --skill jury -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- juliobsz/skills1.1k
- Category
- Design
- Updated
- 9d ago
- License
- MIT
- Context cost
- Mediumabout 1,832 tokens
- Runs scripts
- Yes, review before use
What it does
Score any website the way an Awwwards jury would, from evidence alone. Screenshots every page type on desktop, a throttled phone and reduced motion, measures LCP, CLS, FPS, axe, keyboard focus and hover feedback, audits SEO and metadata, then a fresh critic that never sees the code scores Design, Usability, Creativity, Content and the six developer areas, with a ranked fix list. Use when someone asks to review, critique, score, rate or roast a website, portfolio or landing page, asks whether a site is good enough for Awwwards or Site of the Day, or wants design QA of a live URL or a local build. Not for building or redesigning a site; use /awwwards for that.
/jury
Score a website the way the Awwwards jury would: from what a visitor sees and what the browser measures, never from the code, the design notes or what the owner meant. Hand back a score card with evidence for every number and a ranked list of fixes.
Not affiliated with Awwwards. The criteria and weights are theirs and public (awwwards.com/about-evaluation); the scores are an estimate. Say so on every card.
Skill root: the directory containing this file ($SKILL; substitute the absolute path in
commands). The scripts need Node 20+ and Playwright, plus axe-core for the accessibility pass.
references/quality-bar.md has the system, the rubric and the critic brief.
references/calibration.md has the measured gap between this critic and real juries. It is for
you, for the score card. Never give it to the critic.
Why blind
Anyone who knows what a site is meant to do scores the intent instead of the screen. A juror
gets a URL and a few minutes. So the critic gets only screenshots and measurements: no source,
no DESIGN.md, no README, no pitch from the owner. If the user explains the idea, hold it until
the score is in, then compare (step 5).
