build-review-interface▌
hamelsmu/evals-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Build an HTML page that loads traces from a data source (JSON/CSV file), displays one trace at a time with Pass/Fail buttons, a free-text notes field, and Next/Previous navigation. Save labels to a local file (CSV/SQLite/JSON). Then customize to the domain using the guidelines below.
Build a Custom Annotation Interface
Overview
Build an HTML page that loads traces from a data source (JSON/CSV file), displays one trace at a time with Pass/Fail buttons, a free-text notes field, and Next/Previous navigation. Save labels to a local file (CSV/SQLite/JSON). Then customize to the domain using the guidelines below.
Data Display
Format all data in the most human-readable representation for the domain. Emails should look like emails. Code should have syntax highlighting. Markdown should be rendered. Tables should be tables. JSON should be pretty-printed and collapsible.
- Collapse repetitive elements. If every trace shares the same system prompt, put it in a
<details>toggle. - Extract and surface key metadata. If traces contain a property name, client type, or session ID buried in the data, extract it and display it prominently as a header or badge.
- Color-code by role or status. Use left-border colors to distinguish user messages, assistant messages, tool calls, and system prompts at a glance.
- Group related elements visually. Tool calls and their responses should be visually linked (indentation, shared border).
- Collapse what doesn't help judgment. Verbose tool response JSON, intermediate reasoning steps, and debugging context go behind toggles.
- Highlight what matters most. Make the primary content reviewers judge visually dominant. Bold key entities (prices, dates, names). Use font size and spacing to create hierarchy.
- Show the full trace. Include all intermediate steps (tool calls, retrieved context, reasoning), not just the final output. Collapse them by default but keep them accessible.
- Sanitize rendered content. Strip raw HTML from LLM outputs before rendering. Disable images in rendered markdown if they could be tracking pixels.
Feedback Collection
Annotate at the trace level. The reviewer judges the whole trace, not individual spans.
- Binary Pass/Fail buttons as the primary action.
- Free-text notes field for the reviewer to describe what went wrong (or right).
- Defer button for uncertain cases.
- Auto-save on every action.
Once you have established failure categories from error analysis, you can later add predefined failure mode tags as clickable checkboxes, dropdowns or picklists so reviewers can select from known categories in addition to writing notes. But don't add these in the initial build.
Navigation and Status
- Next/Previous buttons and keyboard arrow keys.
- Trace counter showing position and progress ("12 of 87 remaining").
- Jump to specific trace by ID.
- Counts of labeled vs unlabeled traces.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Arrow keys = Navigate traces
1 = Pass 2 = Fail
D = Defer U = Undo last action
Cmd+S = Save Cmd+Enter = Save and next
Selecting Traces to Load
Build the app to accept traces from any source (JSON/CSV file). Keep sampling logic outside the app in a separate script. Start with random sampling.
Additional Features
Reference panel: Toggle-able panel showing ground truth, expected answers, or rubric definitions alongside the trace.
Filtering: Filter traces by metadata dimensions relevant to the product (channel, user type, pipeline version).
Clustering: Group traces by metadata or semantic similarity. Show representative traces per cluster with drill-down.
Design Checklist
- Same layout, controls, and terminology on every trace
- Pass and Fail buttons are visually distinct (color, size)
- Keyboard shortcuts work for all primary actions
- Full trace accessible even when sections are collapsed
- Labels persist automatically without explicit save
- Trace-level annotation (not span-level) as the default
- All data rendered in its native format (markdown as HTML, code with highlighting, JSON pretty-printed, tables as HTML tables, URLs as clickable links)
Testing
After building the interface, verify it with Playwright.
Visual review: Take screenshots of the interface with representative trace data loaded. Review each screenshot for:
- Layout and spacing: is the visual hierarchy clear? Can you immediately see what matters?
- Readability: is all data rendered in its native format? Are there any raw JSON blobs, unrendered markdown, or unstyled content?
- Aesthetics: does the interface look professional and clean? Would a domain expert use this?
- Responsiveness: does the layout hold at different window sizes?
Functional test: Write a Playwright script that performs a full annotation workflow:
- Load the app and verify traces are displayed
- Click Pass on a trace, verify the label is saved
- Click Fail on a trace, add a note, verify both are saved
- Click Defer, verify it is recorded
- Navigate forward and backward with buttons and keyboard shortcuts
- Verify the trace counter updates correctly
- Verify auto-save by reloading the page and checking labels persist
- Expand collapsed sections (system prompts, tool calls) and verify content is accessible
- Test that all keyboard shortcuts trigger the correct actions
How to use build-review-interface on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add build-review-interface
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches build-review-interface from GitHub repository hamelsmu/evals-skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate build-review-interface. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /build-review-interface) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Task Automation & Efficiency
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Knowledge Enhancement
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Quality Improvement
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
- ›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
- ›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Installation Steps
- 1.Install skill using provided installation command
- 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
- 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
- 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
- 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
- ⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
- ⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
- ⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Start with clear, specific prompts
- +Provide relevant context and constraints
- +Review and refine all outputs before using
- +Iterate to improve output quality
- +Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
- −Don't use without understanding skill limitations
- −Don't skip validation of outputs
- −Don't share sensitive information in prompts
- −Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Be specific about desired format and style
- ★Ask for multiple options to choose from
- ★Request explanations to understand reasoning
- ★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
Learning Path▌
- 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
- 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
- 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
- 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★73 reviews- ★★★★★Fatima Sethi· Dec 28, 2024
We added build-review-interface from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Fatima Chawla· Dec 24, 2024
build-review-interface is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Fatima Bhatia· Dec 8, 2024
build-review-interface has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Harper Jain· Dec 4, 2024
Registry listing for build-review-interface matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Sofia Abebe· Dec 4, 2024
Keeps context tight: build-review-interface is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Olivia Thompson· Nov 27, 2024
build-review-interface fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Yash Thakker· Nov 23, 2024
Registry listing for build-review-interface matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Noor Li· Nov 23, 2024
I recommend build-review-interface for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Zaid Mensah· Nov 19, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: build-review-interface is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Harper Anderson· Nov 15, 2024
Useful defaults in build-review-interface — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
showing 1-10 of 73