recipe-front-review

Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.

Quality

64%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/recipe-front-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The content is a well-sequenced, highly actionable orchestration recipe with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops, but it is verbose with repeated governance boilerplate and makes no use of progressive file disclosure.

Suggestions

Hoist the repeated Review Resolution Gate / convergence-condition language into a single referenced block instead of restating it in Steps 4, 5, 8, and 9.

Move the report templates and the finding-routing table into a references/ file (e.g. report-templates.md) and link to it, improving progressive disclosure.

Tighten Step 1's inclusion rule, which is a dense run-on sentence that could be split into a short rule plus a bulleted scope list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient procedural instruction and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but governance boilerplate ('Apply the Review Resolution Gate...', 'proceed at its convergence condition') is repeated across several steps and could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Each step gives concrete Agent invocations with subagent_type, description, and copy-paste-ready prompt templates with declared field substitutions, matching 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'; not a 5 because prompts still contain placeholders ([path], [implementationFiles]) requiring mechanical extraction.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-10 are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints (Review Resolution Gate, convergence conditions), feedback loops (re-validation, retry-once for quality-fixer limitations), and clear routing rules for a correction/batch workflow.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-sectioned (Orchestrator Definition, Execution Method, Execution Flow) but is a monolithic single file with no bundle files in references/scripts/assets, and its only file reference points to another skill's bundle rather than splitting its own detail.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

58%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The description is specific and distinct, naming multiple concrete review actions plus React correction application, but it omits any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance and leans on governance jargon rather than natural user phrases.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing a completed React/TypeScript frontend implementation or after frontend corrections are approved.'

Replace or supplement jargon ('governing-source compliance', 'scope economy') with natural phrases users would actually say ('design-doc compliance', 'scope creep', 'code review').

Include common trigger terms like 'frontend review', 'React review', or 'review my frontend' to improve natural keyword coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (completed frontend implementation) and several concrete actions—reviewing for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applying user-approved React corrections—matching the 'several specific actions, minor gaps' anchor; not a 5 because the actions are review-categories rather than a fully granular action list.	4 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some natural keywords ('frontend implementation', 'React corrections', 'security') but leans on jargon like 'governing-source compliance' and 'scope economy' that users would not naturally say, missing common variations; matches the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The skill targets a clear niche (post-implementation frontend QA with correction routing) and is mostly distinct from generic skills, with only minor overlap with general code-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: shinpr/claude-code-workflows
Path: skills/recipe-front-review/SKILL.md
Commit: 9b7f687

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.