I get this. Just shipped the ability to create and edit themes locally, no auth required. The local theme gets persisted to localstorage and you can optionally save/share it later. It also works seamlessly with the fork / import features, so those can be used without auth as well.
Global border radius is editable, that setting is at the bottom of the sidebar. The challenge with global shadcn theming is that you're limited to adjusting the css variables they provide. I believe there is a global spacing variable, but it is not so specific that you can target e.g. just label spacing. That would be something you could modify directly within your shadcn input components via adjusting the tailwind class(es).
Tweakcn is a great tool too. Main difference is I'm hoping ShadcnThemer will be more of a community-driven hub for sharing, starring, and forking themes - similar to how color palette websites have 1000's of user-made palettes. (I took this approach when building the Theme Studio for VS Code and it worked really well, 1000's of themes were designed and shared.)
Tweakcn also charges $ users to be able to share and save themes which I think is silly for a tool like this, should be 100% free and open source.
I also prefer the simple UX of ShadcnThemer better but I'm biased of course.
Excellent work. A modern alternative to readability was much needed. This is especially useful for building clean web context for LLMs. Thanks for open-sourcing this!
I found LLMs are really good at taking a web page and transforming it to markdown. Well rather commercial LLMs like Claude and Gemini are.
Unfortunately I tried a bunch of hugging face mode on a I could run on my MacBook and all of them ignored my prompts despite trying every variation I could think of. Half the time they just tried summarizing it and describing what JavaScript was. :/
The fundamental issue is that agents / LLMs at present are not engineers or system architects. You cannot sit back and play product manager yet. If you go in with this expectation, you will certainly have a poor experience.
LLM-powered coding agents are not comparable to any existing human role or tool and therefore cannot be used interchangeably. They are a fundamentally new and novel type of tool that enable incredible productivity IF and only if you use them effectively. The tool is not the problem, the user is.
I’m also building a non-trivial SaaS platform and the cursor agent has written 90%+ of the code in the codebase. It has architected ~0% of the codebase. It has modeled ~0% of the data layer in the codebase. It has enabled me to move at least 10x the speed of implementation and debugging (yes, it is incredible at debugging if you use the right techniques).
I use the word implementation because that is almost exclusively what I use it for. I do the planning, design, architecture, engineering. Then, I communicate those specifications to it in digestible chunks, and it implements them incredibly fast. It makes mistakes sometimes, comes up with poor naming conventions, fails to reuse existing modules in the codebase, etc. But that’s fine - I simply give it feedback, point it in the right direction, and within seconds it’s back on course.
I own the codebase, it’s just my super fast implementation minion. If it gets something wrong - that’s my fault. I failed to communicate my expectations clearly. I’m heavily using my brain while working with the LLM - I’m just reserving those mental cycles for higher-level decision making than the actual tokens to type into the editor.
The power is in your ability to steer it and communicate in clear terms what you want, and maintain the right level of abstraction in your instructions. Too specific and you lose some of the benefit beyond just writing the code by hand, too vague / high-level and it will over-engineer something totally different than what you intended.
You’re the engineer, it’s just a really smart semantic code generator. That might change in the future, but for now, if you use it in this way, the productivity benefit is very clear.
I’ve been using cursor with 3.7 sonnet max (now sonnet 4) and I already can’t imagine a world without coding agents - it is so deeply rooted into my workflow.
The definitions of levels vary wildly and there just isn't a good way to compare them. People can be justifiably one level at one company, while being quite a different level at another company.
