Update to LinkedIn Animated Infographics

{
  "description": "Review a finished static or animated LinkedIn infographic before publishing. Check hierarchy, visual balance, dead space, generic UI patterns, copy, evidence, motion, rendering, and feed-scale legibility without redesigning unrelated content.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "linkedin-infographic-review",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: linkedin-infographic-review\ndescription: Review a finished static or animated LinkedIn infographic before publishing. Check hierarchy, visual balance, dead space, generic UI patterns, copy, evidence, motion, rendering, and feed-scale legibility without redesigning unrelated content.\n---\n\n# LinkedIn Infographic Review\n\n## Purpose\n\nRun a focused pre-publish critique on an existing LinkedIn infographic. Diagnose what is blocking publication, separate required fixes from optional polish, and avoid turning review into an unrelated redesign.\n\n## Inputs\n\nUse the finished HTML, GIF, PNG, screenshots, caption, source material, or evidence the user provides.\n\nIf evidence required to validate a factual claim is unavailable, mark that claim as unverified instead of inventing support.\n\n## Review order\n\n### 1. Static composition\n\nInspect the full artboard before looking at small details.\n\nCheck:\n\n- one dominant visual anchor is obvious within two seconds\n- the page has a clear macro rhythm from hook to visual relationship to takeaway\n- the composition is not top-heavy\n- there is no unexplained dead zone near the footer\n- the footer belongs to the composition instead of floating far below it\n- text remains readable at feed scale\n- copy density is solved through hierarchy and editing rather than tiny type\n\nFor a 1080x1350 artboard, treat an unexplained vertical gap greater than 120px between the main composition and footer/takeaway as a blocking warning unless negative space has an intentional visual job.\n\n### 2. Perception tests\n\nRun the smallest relevant set against the actual visual:\n\n- **one-second hierarchy test**: identify the hook, primary anchor, and takeaway before reading supporting copy\n- **100x100** thumbnail test: the main silhouette and hierarchy must survive at approximately 100x100 pixels\n- squint or blur value-mass test\n- **grayscale** hierarchy test\n- negative-space audit: distinguish intentional framing from accidental dead space\n- edge/crop/tangency review\n- **brand-off specificity** test: without logos, the composition should still feel specific to this story\n- **effect-subtraction** test: removing glow, shadows, 3D, texture, particles, and decorative motion must not remove the concept itself\n\nA failure here does not automatically justify a full redesign. Identify the **smallest responsible dimension** and repair only that dimension.\n\n### 3. Component grammar\n\nReject generic component patterns when they replace art direction.\n\nCheck:\n\n- no more than two bordered containment levels\n- repeated cards exist only when repetition is meaningful\n- pills, badges, status chips, and tiny uppercase labels have semantic jobs\n- no fake dashboards, fake analytics, fake proof bars, or invented metrics\n- visual structure fits the story rather than the easiest HTML pattern\n\n### 4. Copy and evidence\n\nCheck:\n\n- one primary message\n- hook is specific to the subject\n- body copy adds mechanism, evidence, comparison, consequence, or action\n- takeaway completes the idea instead of repeating the headline\n- claims, numbers, logos, product states, and proof are supported by supplied material\n- no generic filler or exaggerated marketing language\n\n### 5. Motion when animated\n\nEvery meaningful animation must explain at least one of:\n\n- what should I read next?\n- what changed?\n- where did this item travel?\n- which state is active?\n\nFail decorative motion when it dominates the explanatory motion.\nFail `motion-on-weak-still` when the composition itself should be repaired before animation.\n\nInspect frame zero, a representative mid-state, the final state, and the loop seam.\n\n### 6. Failure taxonomy\n\nReturn PASS or FAIL for each:\n\n- `top-heavy-composition`\n- `bottom-dead-zone`\n- `nested-card-density`\n- `generic-ui-grammar`\n- `weak-macro-rhythm`\n- `weak-visual-anchor`\n- `footer-detachment`\n- `motion-on-weak-still`\n- `decorative-motion`\n- `feed-scale-legibility`\n\n### 7. Severity and pressure\n\nHard-gate failures remain blocking regardless of score. Classify additional craft findings as:\n\n- `critical`: blocks immediately\n- `major`: pressure 3\n- `minor`: pressure 1\n\nBlock on any critical finding, two or more major findings, four or more minor findings, or **cumulative pressure** of 6 or more. Do not average away a serious defect.\n\nEvery non-PASS finding should state:\n\n- severity and pressure\n- visible evidence\n- consequence at feed scale\n- smallest responsible dimension\n- exact repair action\n\nSuggested responsibility routing:\n\n- concept/message -> creative direction\n- hierarchy/composition/negative space -> layout\n- typography -> type\n- Arabic/RTL -> Arabic direction when active\n- brand/identity -> asset/brand\n- copy density -> copy compression\n- motion -> motion\n- render/runtime -> render QA\n\n## Output\n\nReturn:\n\n1. verdict: `PASS`, `FAIL:fixable`, or `HOLD`\n2. blocking findings\n3. top three repair actions in priority order\n4. severity counts and cumulative pressure\n5. advisory polish, if any\n6. evidence limitations\n7. motion/render notes when applicable\n\nDo not return PASS while a severe blocking finding remains or while the aggregate pressure threshold is reached. Do not redesign unrelated content.\n"
}