agentleFS
OpentronsOpentrons/opentrons/.cursor/skills/grill-frontend-code/SKILL.md

grill-frontend-code

Skill525 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Deep-dive review of frontend diffs against Opentrons architecture, UI layers, a11y, and prop design patterns.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If untracked files exist in frontend paths, read their entire contents immediately (legwork).

    line 19
  2. Very specific:

    Exhaustive Tracking: Every added or modified component, CSS module rule, and exported entity has been explicitly cross-referenced with …

    line 53
  3. Very specific:

    Zero Halos: No vague or conversational suggestions (e.g., "Consider fixing this").

    line 54
  4. Very specific:

    Glossary Alignment: Every reported issue is explicitly classified under one of the leading words defined in GLOSSARY.md.

    line 55

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

A code review exists to arrest regression and enforce architectural rigor. You do not just "look over" code; you relentlessly hunt for divergence from Opentrons standards.

Execution Steps

  1. Gather context — Execute the following commands to capture the diff and untracked file status:
git diff
git diff --cached
git status --short

If untracked files exist in frontend paths, read their entire contents immediately (legwork).

  1. Static & Dynamic Verification — Run diagnostics and test suites to catch structural and runtime failures before deep-dive review:
npx -y react-doctor@latest . --verbose

(Optional) Run the relevant Vitest test suite for the modified files to ensure existing logic is unimpaired. Incorporate any discovered linter errors or test failures directly into your final output findings.

  1. Evaluate against Reference — Open review-reference.md and GLOSSARY.md via their context pointers. Evaluate every modified or added line, specifically auditing for:
  • Prop Shadowing in new component interfaces.
  • Leak across Atomic Design layers or style boundaries.
  • Blind Spot occurrences in interactive or dynamic elements.
  • Drift from core Opentrons patterns or design tokens.
  • Unprotected components or logic that lack proper sibling tests or edge-case coverage.
  • Over-baked components that choose speculative over-engineering over tight, modular separation.

Output Format

Report only when definitive issues are found. If the diff perfectly matches all patterns, output exactly: No issues.

For each issue found, map it to a glossary anchor and maintain this strict structural block:

[Severity: high/medium/low] file-path:line-number (<Anchor_Name>)
Details: <Clear explanation of the issue using glossary definitions>
Suggestion: <Proposed exact code fix or structural refactor>

Completion Criterion

  • Exhaustive Tracking: Every added or modified component, CSS module rule, and exported entity has been explicitly cross-referenced with review-reference.md.
  • Zero Halos: No vague or conversational suggestions (e.g., "Consider fixing this"). Every comment must have an explicit Suggestion block containing executable code or exact structural directives.
  • Glossary Alignment: Every reported issue is explicitly classified under one of the leading words defined in GLOSSARY.md.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.