· 2026-05-08 ·v0.5.3 (npm) / main@2026-05-08

HyperFrames

heygen-com/hyperframes

🏭89 / 100

✅

⚠

🎯

⚠

📝

🗺

📍

⚛

→

⚗

→

🧬

🛑

0–29

⚠️

30–49

🛠

50–79

🏭

80–100

▼

🏭· 89 / 100

✓8 claims passed, no critical failures
✓MIT / Apache / etc., installable per deployment.install_methods
✓release_pipeline_score=3 + pushed in 90-day window
⚪EN-only or ZH-only README
⚪compound layer needs a logged scenario run

#1👤

#2🎯

#3🧭

#4⇄

remotion-dev/@remotion/skills

🛠 · 69atom


`npx hyperframes init <name>`	any (Node ≥ 22 + FFmpeg)	easy
`npx skills add heygen-com/hyperframes`	Claude Code / Cursor / Codex / Gemini CLI	easy
`npm install hyperframes`	any (Node ≥ 22)	easy

📡

FFmpeg

Video encoding (image2pipe → MP4)

Free, must be on PATH

Node.js (≥ 22)

Runtime

Free

Chrome / Chromium (via Puppeteer)

Headless rendering

Free; auto-downloaded by Puppeteer

Kokoro TTS (optional)

Voiceover synthesis (via hyperframes-media)

Local model, free

Whisper (optional)

Audio transcription / caption alignment (via hyperframes-media)

Local model, free

· 10

8 2

	+40
	+28
	+15
	+9
	-3
	0

8 / 10

passed claim-001

passed claim-002

passed claim-003

passed claim-004

passed claim-005

passed claim-006

passed claim-007

passed claim-008

deferred claim-009

deferred claim-010

`input_contract`
`output_contract`
`determinism`
`idempotence`
`no_skill_callouts`
`failure_mode_clarity`

`workflow_correctness`
`declared_call_graph`
`stop_conditions`
`handoff_points`
`atom_evidence`
`error_propagation`
`partial_failure_handling`

`goal_achievement`
`direction_judgment`
`quality_judgment`
`meaningful_autonomy`
`handoff_timing`
`observed_call_graph`
`failure_recovery`

core user-facing layer untested → capped at 'usable'
hybrid-repo rule: archetype 'hybrid-skill' requires end-to-end evaluation of the user-facing layer
evidence_completeness='partial' (not portable) → capped at 'usable'

only 4/5 critical claims covered

archetype: hybrid-skill→core_layer_tested? False→evidence: partial→recommended: usable→final: usable

ceiling 1 · core user-facing layer untested → capped at 'usable'

ceiling 2 · hybrid-repo rule: archetype 'hybrid-skill' requires end-to-end evaluation of the user-facing layer

ceiling 3 · evidence_completeness='partial' (not portable) → capped at 'usable'


claim-001	npm 包发布且最近更新	critical	support-distribution	● passed
claim-002	Monorepo 结构与 README 一致	critical	support-structure	● passed
claim-003	skills/ 目录与 README 表一致	critical	support-skills	● passed
claim-004	registry/blocks 数量 ≥ 50	high	support-catalog	● passed
claim-005	许可证 Apache-2.0 已验证	critical	support-license	● passed
claim-006	三个 IDE plugin manifest 全部存在	high	support-plugins	● passed
claim-007	11 个活跃 CI workflow，含回归与跨平台验证	high	support-eval-discipline	● passed
claim-008	高频维护，近 30 天 100+ commit	high	support-activity	● passed
claim-009	端到端 agent → MP4 跑通	critical	core-llm-output	· deferred	Static eval; no live agent run executed. Requires Node 22 + FFmpeg + Puppeteer + an agent runtime; intentionally out of scope for the first-pass dossier. See repo.yaml.next_step for the upgrade path.
claim-010	Frame Adapter 逐帧 seek 一致性	high	core-rendering-determinism	· deferred	Static eval; no render run executed. Requires running the producer pipeline locally and frame-extracting both preview and MP4.

0.00s

# Final Verdict

## Repo

- **Name**:
- **Version tested**:
- **Date**:
- **Archetype**:
- **Layer**: (atom | molecule | compound)
- **Score**:  /100  (from `verdict_calculator.py`, not judgement)
- **Category**:  (🏭 Production-ready / 🛠 Available / ⚠️ Risky / 🛑 Don't use)
- **Tier**: (recommend ≥90 / team ≥80 / self ≥65 / try ≥50 / risky ≥30 / broken <30)

## Plain English

Two sentences max. What does the user get if they adopt this repo today, and what would make them regret it?

- Outcome if adopted:
- Regret scenario:

## Why This Score

State the user-visible outcome first, mechanism second. Lead with what the repo *does* for the user, then the evidence.

### Top 3 score drivers

What earned or cost the most points. Reference `breakdown` from the calculator output.

- +/- :
- +/- :
- +/- :

### Core outcome
What observably works end-to-end? What observably does not?

### Scenario breadth
How many real inputs has it been tested against? Which dimensions vary (platform, data shape, scale)?

### Repeatability
Same input twice → same result? Filesystem-level or only log-level?

### Failure transparency
When it fails, do you learn something actionable, or does it swallow the error?

## What Would Move The Score Up

Concrete, testable next actions in score-impact order. Not "be better" — "add X test against Y fixture showing Z (lifts ~+N)".

1. (~+N)
2. (~+N)
3. (~+N)

## Remaining Risks

Ranked. Each risk with severity + impact + mitigation if known.

| Risk | Severity | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|

## Related Artifacts

- Claim map:
- Plan:
- Runs:
- Verdict calculator input:
- Rendered HTML dossier: