Frame QA - Storyboard Quality Gate

This skill reviews storyboard frames after generation.

It acts like a motion-design art director and production QA pass: keep what works, reject what damages product truth, and write precise regeneration direction.

Activation

Use this skill for requests like:

• "go through all the frames"
• "make sure these look professional"
• "vet against what we built"
• "which frames should regenerate?"
• "this looks amateurish"
• "does this honor the screenshots?"
• "is this good for Higgsfield / Omni?"

Do not use this skill to generate new frames unless the user explicitly asks for regeneration and videos:storyboard + imagegen are also used.

Inputs

Inspect as available:

• individual generated frames
• contact sheet
• prompt logs
• source product screenshots
• accepted prior versions
• rejected examples
• style contract
• narrative beat list
• target video tool constraints

Use visual inspection for image files. Do not judge from filenames alone.

Review Axes

Score each frame against:

1. Product truth: real UI language, real brand, correct feature premise.
2. Cohesion: belongs to the same sequence as the other frames.
3. Motion plausibility: looks like a still from an actual launch animation.
4. Composition: hierarchy, spacing, crop, negative space.
5. Text quality: no gibberish, fake paragraphs, bad labels, or overcrowding.
6. Logo/brand fidelity: no invented marks or mutated brand assets.
7. AI-video readiness: stable enough for interpolation without hallucinated resets.
8. Professional finish: not amateur, not generic, not overly decorative.

Decision Labels

Use only these labels:

• keep: frame is production-usable
• keep with note: usable, but needs a handoff constraint
• regenerate: violates product truth or quality
• optional: nice but not needed for the sequence
• replace narrative: the frame is okay visually but the beat is wrong

Output Format

Default:

Frame QA

Overall:
<short read on the sequence>

Frame 01 - keep
Why:
Motion note:

Frame 02 - regenerate
Issue:
Regeneration direction:

Frame 03 - keep with note
Why:
Handoff constraint:

For many frames, use a compact table:

| Frame | Decision | Issue | Regeneration / Handoff Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

Regeneration Direction

Good regeneration direction names the exact failure and the desired fix:

Regenerate frame 06 with upright UI, one centered leaderboard module, cleaner gradient background, no extra decorative cards, no generated paragraphs, and stronger continuity with frames 05 and 07.

Bad:

Make it better and more professional.

AI-Video Readiness Checks

Flag frames that may look good as stills but fail in video:

• too much angled UI
• dense text that will mutate
• end frame radically different from start frame
• important logo too small
• background with many decorative elements
• multiple UI modules competing
• lack of clean hold frame for stitching

Recommend either a simpler frame or a clearer motion-handoff constraint.

What Not To Do

• Do not manually edit frames.
• Do not create local composites to "fix" bad generations.
• Do not accept mutated logos or gibberish because the overall vibe is nice.
• Do not regenerate everything if only one or two frames break cohesion.
• Do not make the QA so broad that the user cannot act on it.