Motion & Video · Web & Digital
Matthew Jedrzejewski builds the same Rive pack animation four ways: by hand, with Claude via the Rive CLI, with Rive's AI Agent and from a prompt only
An animator times and benchmarks one interactive pack-opening animation built four ways in Rive, and finds the CLI versions cost over 3x more per frame.
Done withRERive (Editor, CLI and AI Agent)CClaude
Animator's own LinkedIn post; a self-initiated test, not client work
WHAT THEY DID
Matthew Jedrzejewski built the same pack-opening animation (the pack spins, you tap it open, a card pops out) four times in Rive: by hand, with his artwork plus Claude via the Rive CLI, with his artwork plus the Rive AI Agent, and from a prompt alone with the CLI.
STEP BY STEP
- Version 1: design, rotation rig and interactive opening built by hand in Rive (using Feathering).
- Version 2: own artwork exported without rig or animation; Claude via the Rive CLI codes the rest, with his input on interaction.
- Version 3: same artwork; the Rive AI Agent in the Editor, several rounds of fixes.
- Version 4: empty project and a prompt; Claude builds everything via CLI; he exports the .rev and adapts it in Rive.
- Each version timed and profiled (fps, ms/frame, file size, tokens).
HOW IT WENT
By his figures: 3 days by hand (60 fps, 4.4 ms/frame); 2.5h plus his design with Claude via CLI (53 fps, 14.6 ms/frame); 1.5h plus his design with the Rive Agent (60 fps, 4.6 ms/frame); 1h prompt-only CLI (60 fps, 14.4 ms/frame). All four are shared as Rive links.
Reported results: Build time fell from 3 days by hand to 1–2.5 hours (two of those versions reused his own design), but both CLI versions ran at over 3x the per-frame cost of the Editor-built ones.
WORTH KNOWING
A rare side-by-side with time, token cost and runtime performance, showing that the fastest build was not the lightest to run and that the prompt-only version lacked his design. It is one self-initiated test on one piece, with figures he measured on his own desktop; the 2.5h and 1.5h times exclude his design work, and the post does not say whether he has any link to Rive.
TRY IT
- Pick one small interactive piece you have already built by hand and rebuild it with the Rive Agent or the CLI.
- Record build time, token cost, file size and ms per frame for each version.
- Export your own artwork first and let the agent handle the rig and interaction, then compare with a prompt-only build.
Rates the entry, not the tool.
Source: Matthew Jedrzejewski · LinkedInOpen as a page
- Work done: not stated in the source (Posted 1 Oct 2026; the post gives no build dates and says only that Rive 'recently launched the CLI'.)
- Source published: Oct 1, 2026
- On 4TC: added Oct 30, 2026 · checked Oct 30, 2026
About this source
Type: Self-initiated experiment · Firsthand report · Demonstrated workflow
- Same pack idea. 4 ways to build it in Rive
Matthew Jedrzejewski · LinkedIn · Published Oct 1, 2026 (LinkedIn post, 1 Oct 2026.) · Checked Oct 30, 2026
Author's own LinkedIn post (video). No sponsorship or #ad disclosed; no Rive affiliation stated in the post.
Access: open - Rive share links: My own / Rive + CLI / Rive Agent / Full CLI
Matthew Jedrzejewski · Rive · Published Oct 1, 2026 (Links posted in his comment on 1 Oct 2026.) · Checked Oct 30, 2026
Author's own comment on the post, linking the four Rive files.
Access: open
Source check: Reviewed by a 4TC editor on Oct 30, 2026. Claims, quotes and dates re-checked against the sources by Ella on 30 Oct 2026. Nobody at 4TC has tested this.
Claims and where they come from
- He built the same pack-opening animation four times: 'the pack spins, you tap it open, a card pops out.' (reported) [1]
- By hand ('pack design, rotation rig, interactive opening'), it took 3 days; he reports 60 fps, 4.4 ms/frame and 358 KB. (reported) [1]
- With his artwork exported 'without rig or animation' and Claude coding the rest via the Rive CLI, it took 2.5h plus his design and 682k tokens (~$4–5); Claude 'struggled with the interactive part and needed quite a bit of my input.' He reports 53 fps, 14.6 ms/frame, 125 KB. (reported) [1]
- With the Rive AI Agent in the Editor it was 'not precise at first, took a few rounds of fixes': 1.5h plus his design, $16 in tokens, 60 fps, 4.6 ms/frame, 327 KB. (reported) [1]
- From an empty project and a prompt, Claude built everything via the CLI and he adapted the exported .rev in Rive: 1h, 414k tokens (~$3), 60 fps, 14.4 ms/frame, 430 KB. (reported) [1]
- 'Both CLI versions cost over 3x more per frame than the ones built in the Editor, even while idle'; he says that leaves 'almost no headroom' for a mid-range phone or a 120Hz screen. (reported) [1]
- 'The fastest version is the only one without my design. And you can see it.' (reported) [1]
- He shared all four versions as Rive links in a comment. (reported) [2]
4TC interpretation
Our reading, not something the source says.
Motion and interaction designers are being told agents can build Rive files. This compares the options on one brief and measures the runtime cost, not only the build time.
Designer impact
Established [1]
Agent-built Rive files can be heavier to run: his CLI versions used over 3x the per-frame cost.
- Profile ms per frame on a mid-range phone before shipping an agent-built file.
- Compare against an Editor-built version of the same piece.
Established [1]
Token costs varied by route, from about $3 to $16 in his test.
- Note token cost per build before quoting faster timelines.
Established = documented by primary sources or the company’s own statements. Disputed = contested with evidence on both sides. Alleged = reported, not established.
Votes rate whether this entry was useful. They are not an endorsement of the tool, and don’t mean voters agree with the company’s practices.
Report an issue or correction
Share your own experience
4TC does not endorse a tool unless an explicit 4TC endorsement is shown.