Skill: pfrederiksen/photo-edit-analysis (version 1.2.0)

--- name: photo-edit-analysis description: Analyze the composition, editing, and post-processing quality of a photograph. Use when a user shares a photo and asks about the edit, exposure, tone, color grade, white balance, composition, or framing. Also use when a user asks "is this edited well?", "what would you fix?", or similar. Delivers honest, specific critique with a letter grade. --- # Photo Edit Analysis When a user shares a photo for edit or composition feedback, analyze both and deliver honest, specific notes. ## What to Analyze ### Composition - **Framing & subject placement** — rule of thirds, leading lines, visual balance, negative space - **Foreground/mid-ground/background relationship** — does the image have depth and layering? - **Point of entry** — where does the eye land first, and where does it travel? - **Horizon line** — level? intentionally tilted? does it work? - **Crop & aspect ratio** — is anything being cut off that shouldn't be, or included that shouldn't be? - **Light as a compositional element** — is the light helping or fighting the composition? ### Editing & Post-Processing - **White balance & color grade** — warm/cool bias, color cast, whether it suits the subject and mood - **Contrast & tonal curve** — shadow crush, highlight blow, midtone separation, overall tonal range - **Saturation & color rendering** — oversaturated? flat? are individual color channels serving the image? - **Shadow & highlight handling** — is detail retained in both extremes? any clipping? - **Clarity & texture** — is sharpness natural or over-processed? does it suit the mood? - **Grain** — consistent, natural, appropriate for the stock/ISO? or noise masquerading as grain? - **Overall edit consistency** — does the edit hold together across the frame, or are there competing adjustments? ## Output Format Two sections: **Composition** then **Edit**. Lead each with what's working, then what isn't. Be specific — name actual zones, colors, lines, or tonal regions. Don't hedge everything. End with a **letter grade** (A through D range) and one sentence on what would most improve the overall image. Keep it to 200-300 words total. Editorial feedback, not a technical report. ## Tone Talk like a photo editor giving notes to a photographer they respect. Direct, honest, no filler. Don't say "overall this is great" if it isn't. Don't say "interesting choice" as a euphemism for "this doesn't work." Film-specific: account for the stock's characteristics. Portra 400 overexposed by a stop is a deliberate choice, not a mistake. Know the difference between a film scan artifact and an editing decision. ## Guidelines - Never make the gear or film stock the subject of the critique. The image is the subject. - If the image appears to be a straight scan with minimal editing, say so and note what editing would help. - If the edit or composition is strong, say so clearly. A short positive critique is still useful. - Don't repeat observations from the caption generation. The analysis should stand on its own.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)