CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

frontend-code-review

Review Dify frontend code for correctness, accessibility, component design, dify-ui usage, data/query boundaries, performance, and tests. Trigger for `.tsx`, `.ts`, `.js`, UI, React, Next.js, pending-change, or focused frontend review requests.

76

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

87%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is concise, actionable, and well-structured with one-level-deep references that all resolve to real files. The main weakness is workflow clarity: the review sequence is clear but lacks explicit validation checkpoints, leaving it one step short of the top anchor.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification/checkpoint step to the Review Process — e.g., 'After analysis, re-confirm each finding against the changed lines and owning contract before reporting' — to turn the linear sequence into a validate-then-report loop.

Consider noting when to re-run scope checks (e.g., 'If a finding depends on a contract you have not read, stop and read it before finalizing') so checkpoints are explicit rather than implied.

State explicitly that review findings should be re-checked against the original diff/scope before being reported, giving a concrete feedback loop for error recovery.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and sectioned, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; the rule-pack and contract pointers each earn their place by aiding selection rather than padding.

3 / 3

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout — exact git commands (`git diff --stat`, `git diff`), specific contract file paths, and a copy-paste-ready output format template — making the instruction actionable rather than abstract.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Review Process gives a clear numbered 5-step sequence, but validation checkpoints are only implicit (e.g., 'read the owning module', 'check regressions first') with no explicit verify→fix→retry feedback loop.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A well-organized overview points to eight one-level-deep reference files (all present in references/) plus named contracts, each clearly signaled with a markdown link and a one-line scope description; no nested references.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, specific description: it states concrete capabilities, includes natural trigger terms, gives explicit when-to-use guidance, and is clearly scoped to the Dify frontend niche. Third-person voice is used correctly.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete review dimensions ("correctness, accessibility, component design, dify-ui usage, data/query boundaries, performance, and tests"), matching the score-3 anchor for listing several specific actions rather than naming only a domain.

3 / 3

Completeness

It answers both what (review Dify frontend code across seven named dimensions) and when, with an explicit "Trigger for ..." clause serving as equivalent 'Use when...' trigger guidance.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It provides broad, natural trigger terms users would say — "`.tsx`, `.ts`, `.js`, UI, React, Next.js, pending-change, or focused frontend review requests" — covering file extensions, frameworks, and request phrasing.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoping to "Dify frontend code" plus specific file types creates a clear niche unlikely to conflict with generic or backend review skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
langgenius/dify
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.