yoriiis/frontend-code-review
Use when asked to review a MR/PR on GitHub or GitLab. Checks for XSS vulnerabilities, validates ARIA attributes and WCAG compliance, identifies render-blocking issues and race conditions, enforces semantic HTML. Produces actionable feedback.
93
93%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
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.
This is a well-crafted skill description that follows best practices. It opens with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, lists specific technical capabilities, and uses third-person voice throughout. The description is concise yet comprehensive, making it easy for Claude to select this skill when users request code reviews focused on frontend quality concerns.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Checks for XSS vulnerabilities, validates ARIA attributes and WCAG compliance, identifies render-blocking issues and race conditions, enforces semantic HTML.' These are clear, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what ('Checks for XSS vulnerabilities, validates ARIA attributes...') and when ('Use when asked to review a MR/PR on GitHub or GitLab'). The 'Use when' clause is present and clear. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'review', 'MR/PR', 'GitHub', 'GitLab', plus domain-specific but recognizable terms like 'XSS', 'ARIA', 'WCAG'. Covers both platform names and review terminology. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche combining code review with specific focus areas (security, accessibility, performance, semantics). The combination of MR/PR review + these specific checks creates a clear, non-conflicting scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted, highly actionable skill for frontend code review with excellent workflow clarity and progressive disclosure. The main weakness is verbosity—some sections could be tightened without losing clarity, and a few explanations (like defining MR/PR) assume less of Claude than necessary. The explicit validation checkpoints, phased workflow, and reference loading system are particular strengths.
Suggestions
Condense the 'MR/PR reference parsing' section—Claude understands these formats without the detailed explanation
Merge the 'Review philosophy' content into the checklist or output format section to reduce repetition about what earns feedback
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but verbose in places—sections like 'Review philosophy' and 'Access check' repeat concepts, and the extensive tables and checklists, while useful, could be more condensed. Some explanations (e.g., what MR/PR means) assume less of Claude than necessary. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable with specific MCP calls (get_merge_request, get_merge_request_diffs, search with exact parameters), concrete file patterns, explicit phase workflows, and copy-paste ready output templates. The instructions are executable rather than abstract. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit phases (1-2-3), numbered quick start steps, validation checkpoints (access check first, verify diffs are complete, count check), and clear feedback loops (Phase 2 approval before posting). The review checklist provides explicit sequencing. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear overview, then detailed sections. References are one level deep with explicit file paths and a reference index table explaining each file's purpose. The mapping tables clearly signal when to load which references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents