Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
docs(agents): describe the animation rule both forks actually follow - #227
Merged
Conversation
The old line banned continuously repainting animations outright. That text is inherited verbatim from upstream and neither fork follows it: web ships four infinite CSS animations (live-activity-focus and its counter, ultrathink-rainbow, ultrathink-chroma-shift) and mobile ships LoadingStrip and ConnectionStatusDot. Upstream wrote the line on 2026-07-28 and shipped an unbounded shimmer on 2026-08-30. What everyone actually does is narrower and more useful: animate only while the state being reported is live, and gate on reduce-motion, app state, and screen focus. That is the rule now written down, with the work-log shimmer named as the reference implementation since it is the only thing in the repo that satisfies all three gates. This deliberately diverges from upstream's wording. Following the inherited text would mean rejecting upstream's own code, which is not a coherent position for a fork that adopts from them. Known gap: LoadingStrip and ConnectionStatusDot predate this and gate on none of the three. They are unchanged here to keep this to one concern.
Thread transfer impact✅ Thread transfer remains within every enforced ceiling.
Baseline: Scenario and decoded snapshot size10 historical turns, 5 command tools per turn, 878.9 KiB retained MCP result per historical turn, and a 1.05 MiB retained result in the measured turn.
Updated in place by a trusted workflow. PR artifacts are strictly validated and never executed. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The problem
AGENTS.mdsaid, flatly:That line is inherited verbatim from upstream (line 150 of theirs, identical
text, arrived via
b64ae880e, 2026-07-28). Neither fork follows it.live-activity-focus,live-activity-focus-counter,ultrathink-rainbow,ultrathink-chroma-shiftLoadingStrip,ConnectionStatusDot, and now the work-log shimmerUpstream wrote the rule on 2026-07-28 and shipped an unbounded
withRepeatshimmer on 2026-08-30 in
#8793. They have never revised the line.This came up because that shimmer landed in Pylon via #223 and I flagged it for
sign-off against the rule. Checking the rule's provenance showed the rule was
the problem, not the shimmer.
What everyone actually does
The real practice is narrower and more useful than a blanket ban: continuous
animation is fine when it is scoped to a transient state and gated. Every
one of the animations above is opt-in and mounted only during a specific state
— live activity, ultrathink, loading, reconnecting, a running tool. None paints
at rest.
The reworded rule says that, and names
thread-work-log.tsx's shimmer as thereference, because it is the only thing in the repo that gates on all three of
reduce-motion, app state, and screen focus.
On following upstream
This is a deliberate divergence from upstream's wording, and worth being
explicit about: following the inherited text would mean rejecting upstream's own
code, which is not a coherent position for a fork that adopts from them. The
underlying intent — don't peg the GPU — is preserved and made checkable.
Known gap
LoadingStripandConnectionStatusDotpredate this and gate on none of thethree; only
cancelAnimationon cleanup. They are unchanged here to keepthis to one concern. Bringing them up to the rule is worth a follow-up — the
shimmer shows the pattern.
Reviewed and integrated with Claude Opus 5 in Claude Code.
Need help on this PR? Tag
@codesmith-botwith what you need. Autofix is disabled.