NanoSkill
submit your skill

HTML Mockup Sketcher

byNousResearch2KGitHub starsGitHub

Generate 2-3 interactive HTML mockup variants to compare UI/UX design directions before committing to a single approach. Quickly explore different visual stances and gather feedback.

mockupSecurity scan passed

Install command

$ npx skills add https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent/tree/main/skills/creative/sketch

About

The HTML Mockup Sketcher is a powerful skill designed to help users quickly explore and compare UI/UX design directions through disposable HTML mockups. Instead of committing to a single design, this tool generates 2-3 interactive variants, allowing for side-by-side comparison of different visual stances. It's ideal for early-stage design exploration, helping you visualize concepts and gather feedback before significant development investment.

This skill focuses on creating functional, interactive HTML mockups that go beyond static images. Each variant is a self-contained HTML file featuring inline CSS, system fonts, and realistic content. Crucially, the mockups include basic interactivity such as clickable links, hover states, and at least one state transition, providing a more tangible feel for the user experience. Integrated browser tools allow for visual verification, ensuring the mockups are clean and bug-free.

To facilitate informed decision-making, the HTML Mockup Sketcher provides a structured comparison. Each variant comes with a detailed `README.md` outlining its design principles, key choices, trade-offs, and best-fit use cases. After generation, a comparative table summarizes the differences across various design dimensions, accompanied by an opinionated analysis to help you select a winner, combine elements, or iterate further.

Key features

What makes it powerful

  • Generate Multiple Design Variants

    Produce 2-3 distinct HTML mockup variants simultaneously, each exploring a different design stance (e.g., density, emphasis, aesthetic, layout) for side-by-side comparison.

  • Interactive HTML Mockups

    Create self-contained HTML files with inline CSS, system fonts, and realistic fake content. Mockups are interactive, allowing for clickable links, hovers, and at least one state transition.

  • Visual Verification with Browser Tools

    Utilize integrated browser navigation and vision tools to visually inspect and verify each HTML mockup, ensuring layouts are clean, readable, and free of bugs before presentation.

  • Structured Variant Documentation

    Each HTML mockup variant includes a `README.md` detailing its design stance, key choices (layout, typography, color, interaction), trade-offs, and ideal use cases to facilitate informed comparison.

  • Comparative Analysis Table

    Present all generated HTML mockup variants in a comparative table, highlighting differences across key dimensions like density, primary action visibility, scan-ability, and overall feel, along with an opinionated summary.

Use cases

When to reach for it

  • Explore UI/UX Design Directions

    Quickly generate and compare multiple HTML mockup variants to explore different user interface and user experience design ideas before investing significant development time.

  • Gather Feedback on Visual Concepts

    Present interactive HTML mockups to stakeholders or users to gather early feedback on various visual directions, helping to refine concepts and make informed design decisions.

  • Rapid Prototyping for New Features

    Create disposable HTML mockups to rapidly prototype new features or screens, focusing on core functionality and visual flow rather than production-ready code.

SKILL.md

Sketch

Use this skill when the user wants to see a design direction before committing to one — exploring a UI/UX idea as disposable HTML mockups. The point is to generate 2-3 interactive variants so the user can compare visual directions side-by-side, not to produce shippable code.

Load this when the user says things like "sketch this screen", "show me what X could look like", "compare layout A vs B", "give me 2-3 takes on this UI", "let me see some variants", "mockup this before I build".

When NOT to use this

  • User wants a production component — use claude-design or build it properly
  • User wants a polished one-off HTML artifact (landing page, deck) — claude-design
  • User wants a diagram — excalidraw, architecture-diagram
  • The design is already locked — just build it

If the user has the full GSD system installed

If gsd-sketch shows up as a sibling skill (installed via npx get-shit-done-cc --hermes), prefer gsd-sketch for the full workflow: persistent .planning/sketches/ with MANIFEST, frontier mode analysis, consistency audits across past sketches, and integration with the rest of GSD. This skill is the lightweight standalone version — one-off sketching without the state machinery.

Core method

intake  →  variants  →  head-to-head  →  pick winner (or iterate)

1. Intake (skip if the user already gave you enough)

Before generating variants, get three things — one question at a time, not all at once:

  1. Feel. "What should this feel like? Adjectives, emotions, a vibe." — "calm, editorial, like Linear" tells you more than "minimal".
  2. References. "What apps, sites, or products capture the feel you're imagining?" — actual references beat abstract descriptions.
  3. Core action. "What's the single most important thing a user does on this screen?" — the variants should all serve this well; if they don't, they're just decoration.

Reflect each answer briefly before the next question. If the user already gave you all three upfront, skip straight to variants.

2. Variants (2-3, never 1, rarely 4+)

Produce 2-3 variants in one go. Each variant is a complete, standalone HTML file. Don't describe variants — build them. The point is comparison.

Each variant should take a different design stance, not different pixel values. Three good variant axes:

  • Density: compact / airy / ultra-dense (pick two contrasting poles)
  • Emphasis: content-first / action-first / tool-first
  • Aesthetic: editorial / utilitarian / playful
  • Layout: single-column / sidebar / split-pane
  • Grounding: card-based / bare-content / document-style

Pick one axis and pull apart from it. Two variants that differ only in accent color are wasted effort — the user can't distinguish them.

Variant naming: describe the stance, not the number.

sketches/
├── 001-calm-editorial/
│   ├── index.html
│   └── README.md
├── 001-utilitarian-dense/
│   ├── index.html
│   └── README.md
└── 001-playful-split/
    ├── index.html
    └── README.md

3. Make them real HTML

Each variant is a single self-contained HTML file:

  • Inline <style> — no build step, no external CSS
  • System fonts or one Google Font via <link>
  • Tailwind via CDN (<script src="https://cdn.tailwindcss.com"></script>) is fine
  • Realistic fake content — actual sentences, actual names, not "Lorem ipsum"
  • Interactive: links clickable, hovers real, at least one state transition (open/close, filter, toggle). A frozen static image is a worse spike than a sloppy animated one.

Open it in a browser. If it looks broken, fix it before showing the user.

Verify variants visually — use Hermes' browser tools. Don't just write HTML and hope it renders; load each variant and look at it:

browser_navigate(url="file:///absolute/path/to/sketches/001-calm-editorial/index.html")
browser_vision(question="Does this layout look clean and readable? Any visible bugs (overlapping text, unstyled elements, broken images)?")

browser_vision returns an AI description of what's actually on the page plus a screenshot path — catches layout bugs that pure source inspection misses (e.g. a font import that silently failed, a flex container that collapsed). Fix and re-navigate until each variant looks right.

Default CSS reset + system font stack for fast starts:

<style>
  * { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; }
  body {
    font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto,
                 "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif;
    -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;
    color: #1a1a1a;
    background: #fafafa;
    line-height: 1.5;
  }
</style>

4. Variant README

Each variant's README.md answers:

## Variant: {stance name}

### Design stance
One sentence on the principle driving this variant.

### Key choices
- Layout: ...
- Typography: ...
- Color: ...
- Interaction: ...

### Trade-offs
- Strong at: ...
- Weak at: ...

### Best for
- The kind of user or use case this variant actually serves

5. Head-to-head

After all variants are built, present them as a comparison. Don't just list — opinionate:

## Three takes on the home screen

| Dimension | Calm editorial | Utilitarian dense | Playful split |
|-----------|----------------|-------------------|---------------|
| Density   | Low            | High              | Medium        |
| Primary action visibility | Low | High | Medium |
| Scan-ability | High | Medium | Low |
| Feel | Calm, trusted | Sharp, tool-like | Inviting, energetic |

**My take:** Utilitarian dense for power users, calm editorial for content-forward audiences. Playful split is weakest — tries to do both and commits to neither.

Let the user pick a winner, or combine two into a hybrid, or ask for another round.

Theming (when the project has a visual identity)

If the user has an existing theme (colors, fonts, tokens), put shared tokens in sketches/themes/tokens.css and @import them in each variant. Keep tokens minimal:

/* sketches/themes/tokens.css */
:root {
  --color-bg: #fafafa;
  --color-fg: #1a1a1a;
  --color-accent: #0066ff;
  --color-muted: #666;
  --radius: 8px;
  --font-display: "Inter", sans-serif;
  --font-body: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;
}

Don't over-tokenize a throwaway sketch — three colors and one font is usually enough.

Interactivity bar

A sketch is interactive enough when the user can:

  1. Click a primary action and something visible happens (state change, modal, toast, navigation feint)
  2. See one meaningful state transition (filter a list, toggle a mode, open/close a panel)
  3. Hover recognizable affordances (buttons, rows, tabs)

More than that is over-engineering a throwaway. Less than that is a screenshot.

Frontier mode (picking what to sketch next)

If sketches already exist and the user says "what should I sketch next?":

  • Consistency gaps — two winning variants from different sketches made independent choices that haven't been composed together yet
  • Unsketched screens — referenced but never explored
  • State coverage — happy path sketched, but not empty / loading / error / 1000-items
  • Responsive gaps — validated at one viewport; does it hold at mobile / ultrawide?
  • Interaction patterns — static layouts exist; transitions, drag, scroll behavior don't

Propose 2-4 named candidates. Let the user pick.

Output

  • Create sketches/ (or .planning/sketches/ if the user is using GSD conventions) in the repo root
  • One subdir per variant: NNN-stance-name/index.html + README.md
  • Tell the user how to open them: open sketches/001-calm-editorial/index.html on macOS, xdg-open on Linux, start on Windows
  • Keep variants disposable — a sketch that you felt the need to preserve should be promoted into real project code, not curated as an asset

Typical tool sequence for one variant:

terminal("mkdir -p sketches/001-calm-editorial")
write_file("sketches/001-calm-editorial/index.html", "<!doctype html>...")
write_file("sketches/001-calm-editorial/README.md", "## Variant: Calm editorial\n...")
browser_navigate(url="file://$(pwd)/sketches/001-calm-editorial/index.html")
browser_vision(question="How does this look? Any obvious layout issues?")

Repeat for each variant, then present the comparison table.

Attribution

Adapted from the GSD (Get Shit Done) project's /gsd-sketch workflow — MIT © 2025 Lex Christopherson (gsd-build/get-shit-done). The full GSD system ships persistent sketch state, theme/variant pattern references, and consistency-audit workflows; install with npx get-shit-done-cc --hermes --global.

FAQ