The animation can fade out supporting icons before the transition is resolved; in the tested RAG flowchart, the waveform icons disappear and the embedding label and arrow are left floating without a visible base.
What was measured
Animation smoothness
No overlapping elements or broken transitions
decisive for this rankingtransformation
Broken transitions or overlapping elements directly undermine the quality of the generated animation. (3 of 3 judges)
What was given, what came back
Test input: RAG Ingestion Pipeline · text
Input — what we sent
The exact prompt
Create an animated flowchart titled "RAG Ingestion Pipeline". A Document is uploaded and its text is extracted. The extracted text is split into smaller chunks. Each chunk is converted into embeddings. The generated embeddings are stored in a Vector Database, and the metadata is stored in a Metadata Store.
A text prompt asking a tool to create an animated flowchart of a RAG ingestion pipeline: document upload, text extraction, chunking, embeddings, and parallel storage into a vector database and a metadata store. It stresses sequential pipeline animation plus a branch into two output paths.
Why this input is hard
- · Sequential process visualization
- · Parallel branching into two outputs
- · Label accuracy for pipeline stages
- · Animated flowchart generation from plain text
Output — unretouched
Also checked on this input — same tool, 4 other criteria
Text-to-animation accuracy✗ FailedThe tool can fail to keep parallel storage targets visually distinct; in the tested RAG flowchart, Vector DB and Metadata Store end up stacked on top of each other instead of separating into two nodes.Text-to-animation accuracy✗ FailedThe tool can draw a dead-end branch with no destination node; in the tested RAG flowchart, the Retrieval arrow points into empty space.Text-to-animation accuracy✗ FailedThe tool can omit a distinct incoming connector for the metadata branch; in the tested RAG flowchart, Metadata Store has no arrow of its own and only piggybacks on the Vector DB connection.Visual clarity◐ MixedConnector lines can partially obscure node labels; in the tested RAG flowchart, the line passes straight through the Upload text instead of staying clear of the label.
Provenance
- Observation
- bf7ba507-9118-486c-a911-42d56aef152e
- Evidence run
- e7fbb451-ba1e-4de0-ad94-41cde2700aef
- Study
- Generate Diagram Animations from Text Descriptions
- Research task
- 86b8vp172
- Tested at
- not recorded
- Source
- first-party
- Evidence state
- verified
- Proof shown
- input + output shown
- Cost / latency
- not captured
- Repeat run
- not captured
- Tester
- not captured
The last three rows are honest blanks, not placeholders — our capture has no field for them yet.
Query this
get_evidence({
tool: "animg"
})MCP · mcp.aidemos.com/api/mcp
Free with attribution.
Same input, same check — 4 other tools
measured on Animation smoothness
Claude AI✓ WorkedUses genuine connector-following motion with a continuous loop, rather than a static reveal, and the tested animation shows no overlap or broken transitions.Framia✓ WorkedThe motion is described as smooth and visually polished, with consistent camera framing and no broken transitions reported for the RAG run.Kodisc◐ MixedDoes not stage the first four pipeline blocks one by one; they appear together in a single burst around 6 seconds into the render.Replit✓ WorkedThe reveal animation was smooth, with the report explicitly stating no overlaps, no ghost artifacts, and no rendering bugs in frame-by-frame review.
This evidence is published in
Real inputs and real outputs, no retouching · every cell queryable via API & MCP · aidemos.com