agentleFS
DojoCodingLabsDojoCodingLabs/remotion-superpowers/skills/review-video/SKILL.md

review-video

Skill153 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review a Remotion video with AI vision. Starts with a cheap local check of rendered still frames, then has TwelveLabs watch the full render and score it against a JSON rubric (pacing, composition, text legibility, audio sync and more) with timestamped fixes, applies the fixes and re-reviews. The feedback loop that closes the production circle.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Before uploading anything, render a handful of still frames and look at them yourself, as official remotion-render shows:

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    If these frames show obvious bugs, fix them first (see step 6) and repeat this step.

    line 29
  3. Distinctive:

    Look for an existing render:

    line 33
  4. Distinctive:

    If there's none, or the code changed since it was made, render it now:

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep the returned asset ID.

    line 51
  6. Very specific:

    Run one sync-analyse-video call that returns the whole review as JSON (renders over 1 hour: async-analyse-video with the same prompt and …

    line 55
  7. Very specific:

    Always pass modelName: "pegasus1.5": the server's default model has been removed from the API.

    line 66
  8. Distinctive:

    Every review uploads a new asset, and assets count against the account's storage.

    line 117
  9. Distinctive:

    Ask the user if they want to apply the suggested fixes.

    line 155
  10. Very specific:

    Check them in Studio (npx remotion studio, or --no-open with an in-app browser.

    line 158
  11. Distinctive:

    Keep iterating until the user is satisfied or the review shows no major issues.

    line 163

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Review Video — AI-Powered Video Feedback Loop

You are reviewing a Remotion video and providing professional feedback: first from a few rendered frames, then by having TwelveLabs "watch" the full render. This closes the production loop — preview, review, improve, repeat.

Load the remotion-production skill for the video-analysis rule. Rendering follows the official remotion-render skill.

Rendering is allowed here. Invoking /review-video is an explicit request to render for review, so you don't need to ask again.

Workflow

1. Quick Frame Check (cheap, local)

Before uploading anything, render a handful of still frames and look at them yourself, as official remotion-render shows:

npx remotion render [CompositionId] out/review-frames --frames=0,45,90,150,240 --image-format=png

Pick frames that cover the hook, each scene's midpoint, the busiest moments (captions, overlays) and the last frame. Read the PNGs and check:

  • Blank or empty frames, missing assets (a missing staticFile() shows as nothing or an error)
  • Text readability, overflow and safe areas (official remotion-create/video-layout.md)
  • Caption placement against the platform UI (the captions-workflow rule)

If these frames show obvious bugs, fix them first (see step 6) and repeat this step. That's much cheaper than a full render plus a TwelveLabs upload.

2. Render the Full Video

Look for an existing render:

ls -t out/ 2>/dev/null | grep -E '\.(mp4|webm|mov)$'

If there's none, or the code changed since it was made, render it now:

npx remotion render [CompositionId] out/video.mp4

3. Upload the Render to TwelveLabs

create-asset:
  file: [absolute path to the render, e.g. /path/to/project/out/video.mp4]

Keep the returned asset ID. No index is needed. If the analyse call says the asset isn't ready, wait a few seconds and retry.

4. Analyze — The Director's Review

Run one sync-analyse-video call that returns the whole review as JSON (renders over 1 hour: async-analyse-video with the same prompt and jsonSchema, then poll get-analyse-task):

sync-analyse-video:
  assetId: [asset ID]
  modelName: "pegasus1.5"
  temperature: 0.2
  prompt: "You are a video director reviewing a [duration]s [platform] video at [WxH]. Intent: [one-line brief]. Script: [narration, per scene]. Score each dimension 1-10 and list concrete fixes with timestamps in seconds. Check: framing and composition; whether on-screen text is readable and on screen long enough; transitions; blank, frozen or glitchy frames; pacing (scenes too long or too short); whether the voiceover matches what's on screen; SFX timing; music mood and level under the voice; whether the first 3 seconds hook; whether the CTA is clear."
  jsonSchema: [the rubric below]

Always pass modelName: "pegasus1.5": the server's default model has been removed from the API.

Rubric (jsonSchema):

{
  "type": "object",
  "properties": {
    "overall_score": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10" },
    "scores": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "hook": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10, first 3 seconds" },
        "pacing": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10" },
        "composition": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10, framing and layout" },
        "text_legibility": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10, size, contrast, time on screen" },
        "transitions": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10" },
        "audio_sync": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10, voiceover and SFX against visuals" },
        "audio_mix": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10, voice clarity, music level" },
        "cta": { "type": "integer", "description": "1-10, clarity of the ending" }
      },
      "required": ["hook", "pacing", "composition", "text_legibility", "transitions", "audio_sync", "audio_mix", "cta"]
    },
    "working": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
    "fixes": {
      "type": "array",
      "items": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "start": { "type": "number", "description": "seconds" },
          "end": { "type": "number", "description": "seconds" },
          "dimension": { "type": "string", "enum": ["hook", "pacing", "composition", "text_legibility", "transitions", "audio_sync", "audio_mix", "cta", "glitch"] },
          "severity": { "type": "string", "enum": ["critical", "major", "minor"] },
          "issue": { "type": "string" },
          "fix": { "type": "string" }
        },
        "required": ["start", "end", "dimension", "severity", "issue", "fix"]
      }
    },
    "priority_fix": { "type": "string" }
  },
  "required": ["overall_score", "scores", "working", "fixes", "priority_fix"]
}

Save the JSON (e.g. out/review-1.json) so the next pass can be compared with this one, then clean up:

delete-asset:
  assetId: [asset ID]

Every review uploads a new asset, and assets count against the account's storage.

To look closer at one stretch (say a fix at 12-18 s), run sync-analyse-video again with startTime/endTime around it (the window must be at least 4 s) before deleting the asset.

5. Present the Review

Format the JSON as a professional director's review. Convert each fix's timestamps to frames (Math.round(seconds * fps)) and name the scene it falls in, so the fix points at code:

🎬 Video Review: [filename]
Duration: [X]s | Resolution: [WxH]

📊 Overall Score: [overall_score]/10
   Hook [x] · Pacing [x] · Composition [x] · Text [x] · Transitions [x] · Audio sync [x] · Mix [x] · CTA [x]

✅ What's Working:
  - [working[0]]
  - [working[1]]

⚠️ Improvements Needed (by severity):
  1. [CRITICAL] [start]-[end]s (frames [a]-[b], [scene]) [issue] → [fix]
  2. [MAJOR] ...
  3. [MINOR] ...

🎯 Priority Fix:
  [priority_fix]

🔄 Next Steps:
  - [ ] [actionable task 1]
  - [ ] [actionable task 2]
  - [ ] [actionable task 3]
  Then run /review-video again.

Cross-check the AI review against your own frame check from step 1; if they disagree on something visible, trust the frames and say so.

6. Implement Fixes

Ask the user if they want to apply the suggested fixes. If yes:

  1. Preserve user changes. Re-read the files before editing. If the user changed the code or edited things in Studio since the last turn, keep their edits and apply the fixes on top; ask if a fix would undo one of them.
  2. Make the code changes, critical and major first
  3. Check them in Studio (npx remotion studio, or --no-open with an in-app browser; open the URL it prints). Studio stays open while you iterate.
  4. Re-render (step 2) and re-review (steps 1-5) to verify the improvements, comparing the new scores with the saved JSON

7. Iteration Loop

Keep iterating until the user is satisfied or the review shows no major issues.

The loop: Frame check → Render → Upload → Analyse with the rubric → Delete asset → Fix (in Studio) → Re-render → repeat until quality is right.

Review Checklist

For each review, check these items:

Visuals:

  • No blank/empty frames
  • Text is readable at target resolution
  • Colors are consistent throughout
  • Animations are smooth (no stuttering)
  • Images/footage are high quality (not pixelated)

Audio:

  • Voiceover is clear and audible
  • Music volume doesn't overpower voice
  • Sound effects are timed correctly
  • No audio clipping or distortion
  • Fade in/out at start and end

Structure:

  • Strong opening hook (first 2-3 seconds)
  • Clear narrative flow
  • Appropriate pacing for platform/audience
  • Clean ending with CTA (if applicable)
  • Total duration matches target

Technical:

  • Correct aspect ratio (16:9 or 9:16)
  • Correct FPS (30 or 60)
  • File size reasonable for target platform
  • No rendering artifacts

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.