Here's my direct feedback, as a member of your target audience:
The call to action says "Copy prompt", not "Unlock prompt", "Sign in to copy", or "Get Creative to access prompts". I didn't even go past the signup to see if the prompts themselves are actually free and work without a subscription to your hosted MCP server. There's a GitHub link in the header suggesting an OSS tier, at the least. That repo may include "prompts" folders, but no prompts are there. The README doesn't even hint that this is a paid library of assets/prompts until the very end, with the misspelled "enhanched" sentence under the "Pro" header. The only prompts that appear to be in the repo (other than those that configure an agent how to use the paid and hosted MCP) are basic design guidelines.
Getting back to the website: your hero text directly invites users to "Try each example and copy its implementation prompt." Which immediately demands the aforementioned signup flow that I didn't bother completing.
All of that just turned me right off.
Your examples are nice, if a bit generic. But if you intended this to be a loss-leader for the more "enhanched" UI/UX skills, it isn't doing that job.
I have deep appreciation for well crafted vanilla front-end and for the value micro interactions bring to the table, but I really struggle to reconcile the value of this now that we have LLMs that do a phenomenal job at solving these UI/UX problems.
Tailwind UI is a perfect example of this where when I used to use Tailwind UI religiously and paid for it, I can just tell Claude Code “make it much prettier and bring it to life with really well designed micro interactions to create an excellent and enjoyable end-user experience” and it will get me 90% there which is easily more than good enough.
I really hope I’m wrong and that there is still a market for hand crafted components like this but honestly I think the free components exposed here plus the images of the paid components is enough for any LLM to pick this up and run with it likely without the LLM user even knowing that’s what has happened and therefore I can’t see a path to sustainable ARR for you guys.
Some of these are genuinely nice. I really like the action slide-out, the wall reveal, and the slide-off reveal.
Unfortunately for a thing whose core job is polished UI, there's still quite a lot of polish needed before I would be willing to implement any of this in my UI
To name a few :
- the swap icon state theme preview switcher cascades the element brightness rather than fading them together.
- The confirm reveal has something wrong with the spring every third or fourth click, which is strange
- Cards: the stacked deck cycle. When you click Next, it doesn't draw the top card.
- The shared element expand option: when you minimize, the spring dampening pushes the components outside of the container.
- Swipe to dismiss causes the container to temporarily show a scroll bar.
I've seen you all on Twitter and have been confused on why people like this product. A lot of these are fairly unpolished and don't seem to have been designed with much consistency. I think if I gave Opus 5.5 instructions to make pretty much any of these components it could produce these 1-shot.
Take the verification code UI for example. We have animations on switching between the numbers, but not on updating the check icon. I also don't have the option to see other states. What happens on Error? For example.
On your Bio fill, the better pattern for text character limits is not to stop allowing typing after the limit has been hit, but instead to allow overfill and start counting onwards with an obvious red state. You do this, but cap at 20 more. Why? The whole point is to allow people to enter their full text and synthesize to the character limit. Is this a configurable setting? I can't tell if there's a customization because I have to create an account to copy the prompt and there's no obvious path to learn more about it.
These were literally the first two components I looked at. At that rate I feel like I can find an issue with all of them.
Feels unpolished and I can't imagine paying for it. Much less at a minimum of $10/mo when soooo many other free component websites do the same. For a design-focused product, the experience feels cheap and more like AI slop to me than a polished solution.
Love these but curious: they sell access to this UI but can't I point an agent at this and have it copy these? Or is it better quality outputs to use the MCP?
Thanks! Me and the co-founder of the project built Flowbite previously so we have some experience in the UI/UX field. I think that as with anything you can copy it, but your agent will be pointed to an HTML+CSS structure, rather than the natural language structure of our prompts/MCP context. Plus, you can support the work of two fellow humans.
You get quite a bit more than that, including access to the MCP server. We are boostraped, no VC to back us so it's the only way we can make this project sustainable.
In the era of LLMs, the value of code is very low. I don't think most people, especially here, can justify $30 per month. It's more expensive than a Claude Pro sub.
I wanted to say that some animations look choppy, but it's yet again the Chrome's prefers-reduced-motion css feature mapped to Windows's Animation Effects knob, which is completely outrageous.
The call to action says "Copy prompt", not "Unlock prompt", "Sign in to copy", or "Get Creative to access prompts". I didn't even go past the signup to see if the prompts themselves are actually free and work without a subscription to your hosted MCP server. There's a GitHub link in the header suggesting an OSS tier, at the least. That repo may include "prompts" folders, but no prompts are there. The README doesn't even hint that this is a paid library of assets/prompts until the very end, with the misspelled "enhanched" sentence under the "Pro" header. The only prompts that appear to be in the repo (other than those that configure an agent how to use the paid and hosted MCP) are basic design guidelines.
Getting back to the website: your hero text directly invites users to "Try each example and copy its implementation prompt." Which immediately demands the aforementioned signup flow that I didn't bother completing.
All of that just turned me right off.
Your examples are nice, if a bit generic. But if you intended this to be a loss-leader for the more "enhanched" UI/UX skills, it isn't doing that job.
That said, some nifty ideas that aren't hard to prompt / reference oneself. Thanks from a swe who's terrible at design but does care about it!
Tailwind UI is a perfect example of this where when I used to use Tailwind UI religiously and paid for it, I can just tell Claude Code “make it much prettier and bring it to life with really well designed micro interactions to create an excellent and enjoyable end-user experience” and it will get me 90% there which is easily more than good enough.
I really hope I’m wrong and that there is still a market for hand crafted components like this but honestly I think the free components exposed here plus the images of the paid components is enough for any LLM to pick this up and run with it likely without the LLM user even knowing that’s what has happened and therefore I can’t see a path to sustainable ARR for you guys.
Unfortunately for a thing whose core job is polished UI, there's still quite a lot of polish needed before I would be willing to implement any of this in my UI To name a few : - the swap icon state theme preview switcher cascades the element brightness rather than fading them together. - The confirm reveal has something wrong with the spring every third or fourth click, which is strange - Cards: the stacked deck cycle. When you click Next, it doesn't draw the top card. - The shared element expand option: when you minimize, the spring dampening pushes the components outside of the container. - Swipe to dismiss causes the container to temporarily show a scroll bar.
I've seen you all on Twitter and have been confused on why people like this product. A lot of these are fairly unpolished and don't seem to have been designed with much consistency. I think if I gave Opus 5.5 instructions to make pretty much any of these components it could produce these 1-shot.
Take the verification code UI for example. We have animations on switching between the numbers, but not on updating the check icon. I also don't have the option to see other states. What happens on Error? For example.
On your Bio fill, the better pattern for text character limits is not to stop allowing typing after the limit has been hit, but instead to allow overfill and start counting onwards with an obvious red state. You do this, but cap at 20 more. Why? The whole point is to allow people to enter their full text and synthesize to the character limit. Is this a configurable setting? I can't tell if there's a customization because I have to create an account to copy the prompt and there's no obvious path to learn more about it.
These were literally the first two components I looked at. At that rate I feel like I can find an issue with all of them.
Feels unpolished and I can't imagine paying for it. Much less at a minimum of $10/mo when soooo many other free component websites do the same. For a design-focused product, the experience feels cheap and more like AI slop to me than a polished solution.
* toggle animation on the heart moves the same direction for add and subtract (confusing)
* hold-to-trigger indicator is covered by finger on touch screen
* remove button confirmation can be accidentally confirmed by double click
(I stopped looking after this)
I do love some of these examples, but, and as others noticed, they do lack polish.
Only problem is that now I want all things to have this level of UI
really compelling on-ramp