Score breakdown
Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.
Why it matters
Useful for AI-curious readers, founders, creators, AI agent developers, documentarians, technical writers, and any Claude Code / Codex / Cowork user who needs editorial-quality diagrams that match their brand in 60 seconds -- and who can pair cathrynlavery/diagram-design with the Claude Code skill install (`ln -s ~/code/diagram-design/skills/diagram-design ~/.claude/skills/diagram-design`), the Co
Who should use it
Who should skip it
Skip cathrynlavery/diagram-design if the source repository or demo is inactive, unmaintained, or no longer matches the description shown here.
About this signal
cathrynlavery/diagram-design is tracked by RepoRadar as a mit open-source claude code skil in the Editorial Diagram Skill for Claude Code with Bra section. It was first seen on 2026-07-07 and last updated on 2026-07-07. The current verdict is 'try now' with a Gold tier and easy setup difficulty. Across RepoRadar's eight signals, cathrynlavery/diagram-design is strongest on workflow potential (9.1) and practical usefulness (9.0) and weakest on maturity (6.3) — a profile worth weighing against your own priorities. This page summarizes the evidence RepoRadar has captured from captured source metadata. The score, tier, risk label, and verdict on this page are never influenced by sponsorship, ads, or tips — they reflect only the usefulness, popularity, novelty, momentum, maturity, and evidence signals described in the RepoRadar methodology.
How this item is evaluated
RepoRadar assigned cathrynlavery/diagram-design a composite score of 8.0 out of 10, placing it in the Gold tier. This score combines weighted sub-signals: usefulness (35%), novelty (18%), momentum (14%), maturity (10%), open-source/build quality (7%), evidence quality (6%), workflow potential (6%), and setup ease (4%). Popularity is tracked separately at 1.0 and never affects the composite score or tier. The risk label of 'low' reflects inherent user-impacting hazards, not generic novelty. Items with no risk flag may still require normal code review before production use.
Putting this into practice? Read How to evaluate an AI tool before you adopt it for the checklist behind this score.
Risk explanation
The 2; 705* / 202-fork repo is widely used (Cathryn Lavery publishes from littlemight.com + runs BestSelf.co) but the diagrams are editorial-quality by design -- 'the highest-quality move is usually deletion'; the consumer SHOULD review the style guide + the onboarding spec before customizing per brand; the brand-onboarding flow depends on the consumer's website being reachable + having an extractable palette + font stack.