Score breakdown
Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.
Why it matters
Useful for engineering teams running Claude Code / Cursor / Codex / OpenCode who want their most capable model to do the part where intelligence compounds (audit + spec) and their cheaper models to do the part where execution speed compounds: shadcn/improve is the MIT agent skill that audits any codebase and writes prioritized, self-contained implementation plans for other agents to execute; for e
Who should use it
Who should skip it
Pass on shadcn/improve if its scope or audience does not match what your team is building right now.
About this signal
shadcn/improve is tracked by RepoRadar as a agent skill that audits any code in the MIT agent skill (Agent Skills format) that audit section. It was first seen on 2026-06-25 and last updated on 2026-06-25. The current verdict is 'try now' with a Gold tier and easy setup difficulty. The standout signals for shadcn/improve are workflow potential (10.0) and maturity (9.1), while evidence quality (7.2) trails — that balance shapes where it fits best. 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 shadcn/improve a composite score of 8.5 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 6172.0 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.
Risk explanation
**Plan-writer never modifies source code; merging stays your call.** The hard rule is that the plan-writer never modifies source code and never runs commands that mutate the working tree (read, search, and read-only analysis only). The `/improve execute <plan>` path dispatches a cheaper executor in an isolated git worktree, but the merge is always the user's call. Treat plans as spec, not as PRs; review the diff against intent before merging; **Cheap-model executors need the self-contained plan to do good work.** The plans are written for the weakest plausible executor (a model that has never seen the advisor session and may be much smaller) — self-contained (all context inlined, no 'as discussed above'), verification gates (every step ends with a command and its expected output), hard boundaries (explicit out-of-scope lists, STOP conditions). A weak executor given a thin plan will improvise and fail; a weak executor given a self-contained plan will execute the steps mechanically and verify. Run the executor with the strongest model the team can afford if the plan is shorter than expected; **Direction findings are evidence-cited by design, but the team still owns the roadmap.** The direction category surfaces feature suggestions where every finding must cite evidence from the repo itself (no generic idea-slop), but the team still owns the roadmap — `improve` is a discovery surface, not a replacement for product judgment. Use `/improve next` as input to the planning conversation, not as the planning conversation.