Brainless: Shadcn components that look like Claude Code, Codex and Grok

7/15/2026 at 10:28:35 PM

What inspired you to make this?

by _345

7/15/2026 at 10:33:38 PM

gonna use it on my websites homepage

by benswerd

7/15/2026 at 10:33:39 PM

I fully expected this to be complements for the output you get from those tools for some reason, that AI generated look. No idea why anyone would want that though.

by techpression

7/15/2026 at 9:20:38 PM

I love this!

by sim04ful

7/15/2026 at 8:46:00 PM

Why did you choose to use shadcn registry?

by dprkh

7/15/2026 at 8:50:27 PM

Generally, when using these components I ended up wanting to customize a lot. I switched around the options, coloring, the words in the loading, I mix and matched the components from different CLIs, etc.

I think these are more useful as baselines than as final destinations, and I expect production users to customize them far more than options in components.

I also separately don't really believe in traditional components anymore, code is cheap. The value in these components is that I took the time to pixel match a bunch of the CLIs, not the specific interface used to integrate them.

by benswerd

7/15/2026 at 9:24:00 PM

What are traditional components? How are untraditional better?

by tipiirai

7/15/2026 at 9:27:48 PM

Think MUI, heroUI, traditional components have you install their package, import the component and configure it through arguments.

ShadCN components have you copy the component code into your codebase, you own it. They come with the ability to configure arguments, but also because the code is yours its expected that you change the internal logic/styling/structure of the component.

I believe in the era of AI code the ladder just makes more sense.

by benswerd

7/15/2026 at 10:59:25 PM

> ShadCN components have you copy the component code into your codebase, you own it

That’s a common misconception/myth/lie that doesn’t seem to want to go away even though Shadcn is more honest about it these days.

You don’t own the compenents, and you don’t copy the component code into your codebase. The components are Base UI (and previously Radix) And they’re imported like any other.

What you’re copying is a thin styling wrapper, just the same as you can use to restyle “traditional” components.

The difference is that you have to provide all the styles, rather than just overrides, which can be both a blessing and a curse.

by scoot

7/15/2026 at 11:04:33 PM

I think this is a misinterpretation. BaseUI provides baseline semantics that because the code is in your codebase you can choose to keep or remove. BaseUI is also actively unstyled/unopinionated, you use it to compose your own components, which again live in your codebase.

When you import shadcn components you can rebuild them however you want, thats the point.

by benswerd

7/15/2026 at 9:49:20 PM

If you are using shadCN as building blocks for a centralized component library I think it makes more sense, but personally I don’t think the component registry pattern scales well across multiple teams/UIs. ShadCN and tailwind really encourage design drift.

I think shadCN has its place for sure but I’d always advocate for Mantine and css modules anywhere early enough to use premade UI solutions.

by crab_galaxy