harshsinghmp Show me
A render they have not seen does not exist.
This skill closes the gap between finishing something and actually handing it over. Describing a picture in prose is not showing it. Printing a file path is not showing it. Both feel like delivery and neither one is.
There is nothing to install. You write the HTML, you open it, they look at it.
When this fires
Any time the answer is visual and you are about to type it out instead:
- a plan, a structure, a roadmap, a set of steps
- a comparison between two or more things
- a layout, a page, a design, a wireframe
- a report, a review, a dashboard, a summary of where you got to
- any moment the user has to choose between options
If they would have to read it twice, draw it once.
Mode 1 - SHOW
One thing, or a stack of versions.
- Write a complete, self-contained HTML file to a temp path. Inline CSS, no external requests, no CDN links, no web fonts. It has to render with the network off.
- Include
<meta charset="utf-8">. Without it every apostrophe becomes three characters of gibberish. - Open it and bring the browser to the front (see below).
- Only then say anything about it.
Mode 2 - PICK
Two or more directions the user has to choose between.
Three minimum. Two options is a yes-or-no wearing a disguise. Three is where someone starts seeing what they actually want, and the answer is often a piece of the first inside the shape of the third.
Lay them side by side on one page, each with a short label and a one-line description of the argument it makes - not the decoration, the argument. Then ask.
Never ask someone to choose between visual options described in words. A text description of a layout is your mental model of it, not the thing itself, so you get a ruling on the wrong object or no ruling at all. Render first, ask second.
Before you render: the one-sentence test
Describe each direction in one sentence. If the same sentence fits two of them, you restyled one idea instead of designing two. Go back. A board of three variations on one device wastes the choice, because whatever they pick you have learned nothing.
The board
Build this. It is deliberately plain so the options are the only thing with any visual weight, and every card carries a button that copies the pick, so they answer by clicking rather than by typing out which one they meant.
<!doctype html><meta charset="utf-8"><title>Pick a direction</title>
<style>
:root{--bg:#fff;--fg:#14171a;--mut:#5d6b7a;--line:#e3e8ef;--card:#f7f9fb;--accent:#c2410c}
@media (prefers-color-scheme:dark){
:root{--bg:#0f1418;--fg:#eef2f6;--mut:#9aa8b6;--line:#243039;--card:#161d23;--accent:#fb923c}}
*{box-sizing:border-box}
body{margin:0;background:var(--bg);color:var(--fg);padding:40px 32px 80px;
font:16px/1.55 ui-sans-serif,-apple-system,"Segoe UI",Roboto,sans-serif}
h1{font-size:26px;margin:0 0 6px}
p.lede{margin:0 0 30px;color:var(--mut);max-width:70ch}
.grid{display:grid;gap:22px;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(300px,1fr))}
.card{border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:12px;background:var(--card);
padding:18px;display:flex;flex-direction:column;gap:10px}
.card img,.card svg{width:100%;display:block;border-radius:7px;border:1px solid var(--line)}
h2{font-size:17px;margin:0}
.angle{color:var(--mut);font-size:14px;margin:0;flex:1}
button{font:inherit;font-size:14px;padding:9px 14px;border-radius:7px;cursor:pointer;
border:1px solid var(--accent);background:transparent;color:var(--accent)}
button:hover{background:var(--accent);color:var(--bg)}
</style>
<h1>Pick a direction</h1>
<p class="lede">One line on what to judge, and what to ignore.</p>
<div class="grid">
<div class="card">
<!-- the render: <img src="data:image/png;base64,...">, an <svg>, or live HTML -->
<h2>A — name of the device</h2>
<p class="angle">The argument this one makes, in one line.</p>
<button — paste it back'">Pick A</button>
</div>
<!-- B and C the same -->
</div>
Three rules that keep a board honest:
- Name the device, not the decoration. "Timeline down the left" is a device. "Blue version" is decoration, and it means you built the same thing twice.
- Embed every image. A
<img src="/some/local/path.png">renders as a broken icon the moment the file moves. Base64 it into the page, or draw it in inline SVG or HTML. - Judging shape? Render it greyscale and say so in the lede. Colour decides the argument before they have looked at the structure.
Opening it properly
open -a "Google Chrome" file.html is not showing them anything. It creates the tab and does
not bring the browser forward, so it stacks up behind whatever they are actually looking at. On
macOS use this instead:
osascript <<'EOF'
tell application "Google Chrome"
activate
set w to front window
make new tab at end of tabs of w with properties {URL:"file:///ABSOLUTE/PATH"}
set active tab index of w to (count of tabs of w)
end tell
EOF
activate brings the window forward and setting active tab index selects the new tab. You need
both. On Linux, xdg-open is the equivalent, and on Windows, start.
Then verify it worked. Read the active tab's URL back and check it is yours - another window or another process may have taken focus in between:
osascript -e 'tell application "Google Chrome" to return URL of active tab of front window'
A command that exits 0 is proof it ran, never proof they saw it.
What renders as HTML, and what must not
HTML for anything they will look at or share: plans, reviews, comparisons, reports, dashboards, option grids, session handoffs.
Plain text for anything they will paste into another tool: social posts, newsletter bodies, docs, config files, instruction files. HTML there breaks the paste target, and in a config file it costs tokens on every future session while buying nothing.
State which one you are producing before you build it.
Two things that ruin it
No background grid or texture on anything text-heavy. It looks good on a dashboard and makes a dense document genuinely hard to read.
Look at it yourself first. A render you have not opened is a render you cannot describe honestly, and it is how a broken page gets presented as a candidate.
What you say around it
The render does the explaining. Your words around it should be almost nothing.
Lead with the verdict, not the process. First line is what they are looking at and what you think of it. Never open with what you are about to do or how you got there.
End with one next thing, on its own line, doable now:
Next: pick a direction and I will build it out.
One next step, not a menu. Not "let me know if you want changes", not a list of five things they could ask for. If there is genuinely nothing next, say the work is done and stop.
Say the verdict out loud, including the failures. "This one is broken, the other two are worth looking at" beats silence, and it beats presenting a broken page as a candidate.
Do not guess
The failure that wastes the most time is not a bad render. It is a confident one built on something nobody checked.
If you do not know a filename, a number, a status, a path, or what a link points to, go and check it - read the file, run the query, open the page. A plausible answer you did not verify is the failure, not a shortcut.
If you genuinely cannot check, say "not verified" in those words and name what is missing. Never fill a gap with something that merely sounds right, never infer a value from a filename, and never report the result of a check you did not run.
This is the same instinct Anthropic's own guidance names in its hallucination guidance: give the model explicit permission to admit uncertainty and say it does not know, rather than leaving it to pick the most likely-sounding answer.
The check before you speak
One question: have they seen this, with their eyes, in this session?
If no, you are not finished, however done the artefact is.